link to all the signing statements...among other things..who's bored?

[w8liftinglady]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889

What else has bush been writing into these bills?How Fascist have we become?I am PISSED!

[MissWaverly]

1. w8liftinglady you are a gem!

I think there should be a little late night reading by the DU crew!

:-)

[w8liftinglady]

2. I guess we have to be the press.I LOVE writing letters to the editor..

[MissWaverly]

4. I think it's important too to be able to quote the source

You notice how detailed these statements are, they are written in legalese, you never hear that
from Mr. Aw shucks, I am a country boy in the Oval Office. Yes, I think getting the truth
out is an important part of what we do here.

[w8liftinglady]

8. I agree 100%%%%

[w8liftinglady]

3. for example...did you realize the war in Afghanistan ceased to be 7/02

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_27_38/ai_90333731

I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, find that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, with respect to the Taliban, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Ladin and the Al-Qaida organization, has been significantly altered given the success of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and hereby revoke that order and terminate the national emergency declared in that order with respect to the Taliban

[MissWaverly]

5. so what is going on there now?

so convenient how these statements turn wars on and off w/o debate or interference from anybody,
I am the decider????

[w8liftinglady]

7. it's executive priveledge of the unitary executive..don't ask

[MissWaverly]

10. No, it unitary executive privilege - don't tell

[w8liftinglady]

6. SBA paperwork reduction act...discussion about taxes confidential

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_27_38/ai_90333719

Section 3 of the bill creates a new section 3520 in title 44 of the United States Code to create an interagency task force on information collection and dissemination to help the heads of departments and agencies reduce the government burden on small businesses. Section 3520 purports to require task force publication of differences in views among executive officers and transmittal of recommendations to congressional committees. The executive branch shall construe section 3520 in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch, to protect the confidentiality of executive deliberations, and to recommend to the consideration of the Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

George W. Bush

In other words-don't ask about Cheney's tax returns

[MissWaverly]

9. no, I think it's more of the faith based initiative

You know all those grants giving money for AIDS relief to fundy organizations to make ads
on abstinence, christian based education programs, not to mention off shoots of Halli-bacon
and its many subsidiaries.

[w8liftinglady]

12. Oh,Yeah...I have a hard time sorting through the legalese..thanks

[w8liftinglady]

14. maybe having something to do with these exec orders

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_50_38/ai_96736823
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_50_38/ai_96736824

[Amonester]

11. Kick & Recom (Get This OP Up On Greatest Page) need 3+

And Bookmarked 2! More physical evidence of the Criminal in Chief signing his own unaccountability to the People he is (supposed 2 B) PAID to SERVE, not paid to self and havemores service exclusively (and criminally).

:kick:

[Sydnie]

13. Check this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1402182&mesg_id=1402721

That list is NOT the signing statements that we should be concerned about. That list appears to be the actual WORDS they said concerning the action they were taking. Those are NOT signing statements as I have posted in the link above at all.

[w8liftinglady]

15. Don't forget...not all the evil has been in signing statements.

there have been several "memos"..like the one sent to Negroponte recently that granted him presidential authority over the SEC
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm

[Sydnie]

16. I agree completely with that statement!

[w8liftinglady]

18. like this letter to congress reallocating Iraq funds

to their psyops media campaign,I'm sure
May 27, 2005

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am notifying the Congress of my intent to reallocate funds previously transferred from the Emergency Response Fund (ERF).

To promote democracy and freedom, $7.7 million of ERF funds will be reallocated within the Broadcasting Board of Governors to support the operational costs of Arabic radio and television broadcasting to the Middle East.

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_21_41/ai_n15375277

[MissWaverly]

41. You realize this was probably for good news propaganda

[w8liftinglady]

17. there are SOME..help me decipher THIS one?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_50_40/ai_n9485113

[MissWaverly]

20. that's pretty scary

Many other provisions unconstitutionally condition execution of the laws by the executive branch upon approval by congressional committees

You know like the wiretapping, if you get lapdog Pat Roberts to approve it then it's constitutional to listen in on someone's telephone conversation w/o a subpoena if the
decider says so. You know for threats like democrats, activist judges, journalists,
people that investigate things, oh, you know.

[Igel]

21. These things are typically nightmares to read.

They're extended quibbles about things ranging from trivial disagreements over how a word is used to very large constitutional questions that are unresolved after 210 years.

Take this bit, selected because it has no large constitutional questions involved, as far as I can tell:
So that section 522 of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Act may be faithfully executed, the executive branch shall construe subsection (c), which provides that an agency privacy officer's signature on a report to the agency inspector general shall constitute verification by the officer "that the agency is only using information in identifiable form as detailed in the report" to mean that the signature constitutes verification to the best of the officer's knowledge after diligent inquiry.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_50_40/ai_n9485113/pg_3

The quibble is with http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/108-792/108-792_p395-480_divh.pdf specifically with the concluding line on page 69 of the PDF (page 463 of the document). There's to be a written report of information use "in an identifiable form", etc., etc. "By signing the report the privacy officer also verifies that the agency is only using information in identifiable form as detailed in the report."

"Verify" here means something like "to affirm formally or under oath" (dictionary.com's helpful sometimes). The privacy officer signs the reports; he's just sworn that the report's accurate. You can't swear to what you don't know. He's just said he knows it's accurate.

If it's inaccurate, he's screwed, and arguably committed perjury; it's an extreme argument. * says his branch will construe that sentence to mean "...the signature constitutes verification to the best of the officer's knowledge after diligent inquiry." Due diligence is all that he's going to require. *'s DoJ is being absurdly picky. *'s text is saying that's what the law must be found to mean, but only in their view; the executive has to figure out how to apply the text of a law in any event, and always has the right to ignore unconstitutional or impossible laws (as do we all). Whether the DoJ's opinion is right is a matter for the courts; the signing statements do not override the text of the law, nor bind the courts to a given interpretation. In a sense, * is being very explicit, and his signing statements do exactly what the Congressional Record does. They provide insight into how the law came to be valid, and what those enacting it (and in this case, signing it) take it to mean.

It's the same with much of the other text in this particular signing statement. Some is picky, like this quibble (pointless, to my mind, but not to some nitpicking DoJ staff lawyer). Some is overarching--can the Congress grant funds to another country only if it meets Congress' foreign relations requirements? Does this constitute conducting foreign affairs? Does * manage foreign relations, or Congress? * thinks the executive branch does, subject to limited interference from Congress; Congress thinks it has a very important say and can bind the president's hands. * can negotiate treaties, Congress can't; that's been interpreted variously. I personally think some eager beavers in DoJ want some nasty show downs to be decided, at least for the near future. Robert's "narrow decision" philosophy will thwart them, if he's there when these things become legal cases.

In other places the unitary executive branch theory (without 'branch', it still refers not to *, but to the branch) comes into play. Do the people that report to the president also report to Congress? Who's in charge? Both? But if one disagrees, who's authority wins out? If Congress, that means the president is Congress' lackey, and we don't have three branches of government, just two.

Where to draw the lines has been an issue for a hundred years; the battle continues. Just as Congress is protecting Congressional privilege in the Jefferson business (and in other ways), so presidents frequently protect their privilege. Esp. when the 'privilege' is fuzzy, and as much tradition as legal text.

[MissWaverly]

27. Yes, but

you see that he has the clause that this bill shall be enacted as written unless it
impacts on the function of the executive branch. I saw that more times than I would like
and what does it mean when it's about setting about new businesses? Or setting up a
multi-national bank, how is that a function of the executive branch or saying that the
Special Inspector General in Iraq could report to the Congress except in areas where
national security of executive privilege were related. It's interference is what it is,
yes, I think that the purpose of the signing statement should be a legal quibble. But the
framers gave the most power to the legislative branch realizing that they would represent
the people's will, one man writing laws in the Oval Office was not what they envisioned.

[Igel]

31. It's boilerplate.

Congress has the most authority; but they're not supreme. That's the problem. Or at least one of them.

With Marsbury, every branch has a sword poised over the head of the other branch. Congress can restrict the executive and judiciary in nasty ways; but only in those ways. The executive can make matters hard for Congress and the judiciary, in certain ways. And the judiciary has made life hard for both, in a few ways. At various times different branches have held sway, been more important than the other two.

One man is not writing laws in the signing statements; that's the problem with how the signing statements have been presented here and elsewhere. They don't alter the text of the law, nor do they *control* how the courts will interpret the text. The legislative record has long been one source for judicial interpretation: This is a counterbalance to the legislative history. In any event, the leg. history has lost some authority of late. It's possible for a congressperson to 'correct' the record to include things that were never spoken on the floor; since this correction happens *after* the bill passes, without others knowing what a given insertion will say, it's completely safe spin. And the courts know it.

One man signs laws into force, and has to enforce them. On level 1, the executive branch has to enforce the laws, and decide what they mean. They're under no obligation to enforce a law they think is unconstitutional.

On the other level, since one man's signature counts for a few Congressfolk--if a bill gets a bare majority and gets signed, it's equivalent to a supermajority in both houses--what he thinks a law means when he signs it should also count for the courts when they review the intent of Congress. This isn't a foolish argument, regardless of whose signature is there. And it's why signing statements came along in the first place, really.

Backing up even further, * thinks the Congress has too much authority. That the founding fathers distrusted the executive branch a bit is beyond dispute; but they nonetheless set up three branches, and by giving budget, treaties, and legislation to Congress, they made it pre-eminent. Too much so, actually, Marsbury corrected that (I think it was the wrong decision, but necessary). The amount of authority they intended the executive branch to have is up for grabs, though. *'s vision of a unitary executive branch is remarkably reminiscent of FDRs, and even Kennedy's, in many respects. Were it a dem in charge, with a repub congress, the concern would be much less, and possibly reversed: Most of the debate isn't over the proper separation of powers in the abstract, in principle, but the separation of powers in this specific instance. A strong presidency with * in charge is bad.

But this isn't just a tussle with the Congress. * doesn't trust the courts. Neither does his DoJ. * is establishing original intent for this legislation, and couching it in terms of a specific theory of Constitutional interpretation. A right theory or not, it's part of what a court should reasonably consider when a quibble or dispute over the intended meaning of a law is. By being excruciatingly detailed, his DoJ is saying that the administration clearly thought through what the text of every law and bill could mean. It doesn't force the courts to abide by his interpretation; but it removes the "we can't tell exactly what the language meant at the time" argument, and provides ammo for conservative-oriented justices.

[MissWaverly]

36. I understand what your saying in theory it is true

But, he is using these signing statements as his own lawmaking, he is not interpreting, he is
saying the bill goes this far and I as the Executive say that it will not ... or that it cannot
cross my Executive privilege and nothing will be reported to Congress or I am now establishing
a US/Mexican bank to deal with border trade or I am now saying that Condi has privileges of
the "unitary executive." This is more than an interpretation, he is creating a whole structure
of laws over what has been passed by Congress. I am familiar with your explanation and it was the traditional approach to the federal government but this is not what these signing statements
are.

[MissWaverly]

19. Sydnie

Please do not nitpik, you will see that the sight prints the copyright of the Government Printing Office on each statement, yes, it is retyped, print out the pertinent ones and go look for them in the Federal Register where they must be stored as a matter of public record. This site will allow you to read the signing statement and then refer to the actual copy of the original statement. It's important that people know what is going on and what these statements say. It should state the date and the public law that it's piggybacked to in each statement.

[w8liftinglady]

22. another definition of corrupt

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_31_38/ai_91089291

-snip-to ensure that no infringement on the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of grievances occurs in the enforcement of section 1512(c) of title 18 of the U.S. Code, enacted by section 1102 of the Act, which among other things prohibits corruptly influencing any official proceeding, the executive branch shall construe the term "corruptly" in section 1512(c)(2) as requiring proof of a criminal state of mind on the part of the defendant.

Given that the legislative purpose of section 1514A of title 18 of the U.S. Code, enacted by section 806 of the Act, is to protect against company retaliation for lawful cooperation with investigations and not to define the scope of investigative authority or to grant new investigative authority, the executive branch shall construe section 1514A(a)(1)(B) as referring to investigations authorized by the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives and conducted for a proper legislative purpose.

[w8liftinglady]

23. Mexico-United States agreement on the Border Environment Cooperation Com

Explain,Please :)
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 254, "To authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other purposes." The Act is intended to implement an agreement between the United States and Mexico to accelerate the delivery of environmental infrastructure projects on the border by improving the operations of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank.

Section 546 of Public Law 103-182, as added by section 1 of the Act, purports to direct the President to instruct United States representatives on the Board of Directors of the North American Development Bank to take a particular position with respect to certain grant proposals. Under the Constitution, the President alone is charged with developing the position of the United States in international fora. The executive branch will accordingly interpret this provision as a non-binding recommendation from the Congress.

Sections 2(5) and 2(6) of the Act purport to require the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury to include a description of discussions between the United States and Mexican governments. In order to avoid intrusion into the President's negotiating authority and ability to maintain the confidentiality of diplomatic negotiations, the executive branch will not interpret this provision to require the disclosure of either the con tents of diplomatic communications or specific plans for particular negotiations in the future.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_15_40/ai_117117436

[MissWaverly]

24. This is freaking me out

this should be going through Congress, I never heard him having the authority to set up
a multi-national bank.

[Karenina]

25. The *dauphin is an EMPLOYEE

of the American people. Y'all seem to have forgotten that.

[MissWaverly]

28. that's a good one

[elehhhhna]

42. What the above means:

Section 546 of Public Law 103-182, as added by section 1 of the Act, purports to direct the President to instruct United States representatives on the Board of Directors of the North American Development Bank to take a particular position with respect to certain grant proposals. Under the Constitution, the President alone is charged with developing the position of the United States in international fora. The executive branch will accordingly interpret this provision as a non-binding recommendation from the Congress.

(This law directs the US to take a certain position on whatever--Bush redefines the rule as "a non-binding recommendation from Congess, i.e., doesn't have to comly)

Sections 2(5) and 2(6) of the Act purport to require the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury to include a description of discussions between the United States and Mexican governments. In order to avoid intrusion into the President's negotiating authority and ability to maintain the confidentiality of diplomatic negotiations, the executive branch will not interpret this provision to require the disclosure of either the con tents of diplomatic communications or specific plans for particular negotiations in the future.

This Law requires " an annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury to include a description of discussions between the United States and Mexican governments." Bush says he "will not interpret this provision to require the disclosure".

Essentially they almost ALL (I've read many) say he's not going to comply with required reporting to Congress.

[drm604]

26. K&R

:kick:

[w8liftinglady]

29. Assignment of Function to Submit a Report Relating to Millennium Challenge

Consistent with section 301 of title 3, United States Code, the function of the President under section 613 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004 (Division D of Public Law 108-199) is assigned to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State shall perform such function in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties. Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, furnish to the Secretary information the Secretary requests to perform such function, in the format and on the schedule specified by the Secretary.

Any reference in this memorandum to the provision of any Act shall be deemed to include references to any hereafter-enacted provision of law that is the same or substantially the same as such provision.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_13_41/ai_n13720676

[MissWaverly]

30. did he just say what I thought he said

that the Secretary of State also has "unitary executive" privilege do withhold information
to protect the president's powers.

[w8liftinglady]

33. you will find he has delegated a WHOLE lot of executive priveledge

[MissWaverly]

40. Well, I can see him having some power unique to his office

but he doesn't have a right to delegate his executive privileges out to the home team, they
are not the president and should not have those privileges.

[w8liftinglady]

32. OK,lawyers-interpret this Re:Classification of info

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_13_39/ai_100876792

note-printed march 31,2003

[w8liftinglady]

34. easier to read

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

[w8liftinglady]

35. interesting timeline to compare

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline#March_25

[MissWaverly]

38. I thought this very interesting indeed

first of all, I seem to remember that many things actually are "declassified" after a certain period, including his documents as Governor of Texas which are harder to get than a gold tooth.
If you want to see a Bush document from then, first they want to know WHY and then they want to know WHO and then if you show up at the library with ID, maybe you will get access. This will
do away with time release of sensitive information. Then there's the ballyhoo about who can
classify info, seems like they can classify a pickle sandwich but the material on Valerie
Plame, aw shucks, we know the answer to that one. Well, I do not think that is true, I don't
think that you can "declassify" info from the CIA w/o a "impact briefing" with them on it.
Lawyers jump in here, please.

[w8liftinglady]

37. Notification of Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs

September 29, 2005

To the Congress of the United States:

Consistent with title I of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108-335, I am notifying the Congress of the proposed use of $10,151,538 provided in title I under the heading "Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the District of Columbia." This will reimburse the District for the costs of public safety expenses related to security events and responses to terrorist threats.

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

George W. Bush

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_39_41/ai_n15796101

[MissWaverly]

39. You are just knocking them out of the park today

Thanks for this, I too have wondered in the past how things have happened w/o any debate
like the 80 football fields US embassy rising in Baghdad. I see that George just wrote
a breezy letter saying that I am sending 10 million to DC to pay for security costs, sincerely
yours. That must help them balance the budget in a meaningful way.

[bonito]

43. Kick n/t