All the signing statements scrubbed from the online database?

[Sydnie]

I have used this site - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/search.html - many times to search for and read the signing statements issued by blivet**, even compared them with those that were available for Clinton. In searching this morning, they appear to be gone. All gone. Even Clinton's are now gone.

This is supposed to be the database for public papers. Are they now going to make the signing statements "private and privileged" too?

:wtf:

[robbedvoter]

1. What are those "public papers" that you speak, grandpa?

[MADem]

4. Heh, heh....a sad commentary, but damn, TRUE! NT

[me b zola]

14. "Well, back in the day, back when there were a thing called glaciers..."

:(

[Jeffersons Ghost]

2. it's because the American Bar Ass. is after chimpy for signing statements

[Sydnie]

3. but they were always available before

and why would they remove Clinton's too? This is just crazy!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

6. I've been doing antiwar OPs with Graphics. you should see how fast...

certain graphics disappear from Google images. They even took down lots of imagery from WW2 like Auschwitz pictures right after the torture camp scandal.

[salin]

5. this is potentially huge. May i make a suggestion?

There are a few academics who were quoted in the original Boston Globe story about the Signing statements (the one that first pointed out the more than 750 times). A couple of them have studied signing statements made by president's over the years. Find their names, and through their Univerisities find their faculty email address. Write to them (politely, of course) and let them know that you have been trying to become informed about the content of signing statements (your example of comparing those of Bush and Clinton), but the access point to find them that you use, no longer seems to work in terms of finding the signing statements. Call their attention to this, and ask them if they are able to find the signing statements through another avenue? If they use other avenues, and those are also seemingly scrubbed, than i would contact the original writer of the Globe story and tell him what you are discovering.

Sadly I have very limited time for follow-up, and limited net access for the short term, or I would do this as well. Given the energy that you are clearly already devoting to this (thank you for doing so!), perhaps you would be willing to pursue the avenue I suggest above?

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I read your post and gasped. It would be beyond the pall if this is the case. This is more than 'secrecy'. This is an administration trying to centralize power in ways that make congress (and the courts) more and more irrelevant. If the existence of these statements of intent (how the Admin believes the law should be interpretted) can not be read, than it can not be determined whether or not they are acting on them, and acting against the laws passed by Congress, and then there can be no Court review. The signing statements themselves, seem to throw us into a Constitutional Crisis - however with the ability to check to see if/how the laws are actually being administered (the claim by the right is bush is just stating a contrary opinion, not that he is acting on it and thus there is no constitutional crisis) - is important. If these documents disappear as well, we might as well live in a dictatorship. The term 'coup' that was thrown around in 2000 at the point of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush vs Gore - takes on stronger and stronger implications. With that in mind, I hope that the documents in question have just been moved - and are still able to be found rather than having been scrubbed.

Thanks again for sharing and pursuing this.

[Sydnie]

9. I agree with your suggestion

I have to step out for a few hours but I will begin the task you set out as soon as I return.

Glad I am not the only one who sees the potential problem with their disappearance.

[me b zola]

19. This may be a long shot, but...

I wonder if the ABA would post all of the signing statements, surely they have records of all of them. It couldn't hurt to ask. :shrug:

[salin]

22. It isn't that we can't read them right now...

it is the implication for the country - if they are scrubbed, and all future one's are scrubbed in the future - as if they do not exist.

The signing statements are problematic in themselves. Now imagine that the WH legislates, vetos and 'interprets the constitution' per the laws and acts upon their version of the laws passed by Congress.... but that there is no known record of these statements, no way to know what they are or are not declaring they will follow, no way to challenge in court... the statements themselves come darn near close to (and if the WH is ordering the fed govt to ACT on their signing statements, than they have already) crossing the line into a Constitutional Crisis - where the other branches of the govt become irrelevant. IF there becomes no ability to know if/when/ and the content of all future signing statements we are fully into a constitutional crisis.

Might as well send Congress home, and put the SC on a 'call as needed' retainer type *for symbolic reasons only* retainer. As only one branch of the govt will be needed - as it acts to supercede the roles of the other two. Of course bushco wouldn't do that overtly, as it might panic the public too much - so it would be done covertly - and the other congress would continue to legislate - but now would legislate nada as the WH could rewrite without anyone knowing but with the authority to act on those revisions... and the SC would continue to function on issues that do not involve the Wh - as any issue revolving around the WH acting as exec branch and leg. branch, would be unknown and thus unable to be contested through the court system and thus the 'Interpreting the Constitution' role of the SC would be null and void per actions of BUshco.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Yes, when I saw the title of this thread I instantly got an Orwell moment.

The web is a wonderful tool and means of communicating with each other, but it is also built on quicksand and very vulnerable to the re-writers. Things change, things disappear, things get photoshopped. It is vital to make copies of stuff when you find it, and to index those copies so you can retrieve what you need.

(Not that I actually do that, of course. I'm far too disorganized & sunk into my unique variety of ADD, which seems to be morphing into dementia as I age.)

[Sydnie]

25. I have been doing some investigation at the GPO

site and I looked over the Boston Globe article again. I am in MA, so I think I will give the Globe a call tomorrow and try to speak to the reporter directly myself. If I can't reach him, I will try to contact the news editor. I think they need to do a follow up on this.

Revisiting the GPO site and using the browse link, rather than the search link, the fact that the statements exist is evident, but not one of the links provides a page of text or the pdf document itself.

Perhaps even a call to the GPO might be in order .... anyone in the DC area that would be willing to make that call, it would be much appreciated.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. Here's a comparison I did last month, using an Air America interview.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1355708

[Sydnie]

8. Here is a good history on signing statements

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

how they were used and who wrote them.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. national security. You can't even ask what now is secret. Because

even that is a national security risk.

[robinlynne]

11. k&r.

[robinlynne]

12. There is a link to them on a new thread. It works. look in "latest".

[Sydnie]

15. that is by all means not ALL of them

I posted this statement at a different forum on March 18,2006.

------------

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents
From the 2006 Presidential Documents Online via GPO Access frwais.access.gpo.gov
DOCIDd16ja06_txt-3

Page 23

Pages 23 72

Week Ending Friday, January 13, 2006

Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006


January 6, 2006

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1815, the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' The Act authorizes funding for
the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military
construction, and for national security-related energy programs.
Several provisions of the Act, including sections 352, 360, 403,
562, 818, and 2822, call for executive branch officials to submit to the
Congress proposals for legislation, including budget proposals for
enactment of appropriations, or purport to regulate or require
disclosure of the manner in which the President formulates
recommendations to the Congress for legislation. The executive branch
shall implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the
President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive
branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such
measures as the President judges necessary and expedient. Also, the
executive branch shall construe section 1206(d) of the Act, which
purports to regulate formulation by executive branch officials of
proposed programs for the President to direct, in a manner consistent
with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary
executive branch and to require the opinions of heads of executive
departments. In addition, the executive branch shall construe section
1513(d) of the Act, which purports to make consultation with specified
Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as
calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with
the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the
Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.
A number of provisions of the Act, including sections 905, 932,
1004, 1212, 1224, 1227, and 1304, call for the executive branch to
furnish information to the Congress on various subjects. The executive
branch shall construe such provisions 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.
Section 1222 of the Act refers to a joint explanatory statement of a
committee of conference on a bill as if the statement had the force of
law. The executive branch shall construe the provision in a manner
consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of
the Constitution for the making of a law.
The provisions in Title XIV in Division A of the Act are identical,
except for a punctuation change in section 1405(b)(1)(B) and revisions
in section 1406, to the corresponding provisions in Title X of Division
A of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006 (H.R. 2863 of the 109th Congress) (Public Law 109-148). The
statement I issued upon signing H.R. 2863 into law on December 30, 2005,
is incorporated herein by reference insofar as that statement referred
to Title X of Division A of that Act.
George W. Bush
The White House,
January 6, 2006.

Note: H.R. 1815, approved January 6, was assigned Public Law No. 109-
163. This item was not received in time for publication in the
appropriate issue.

Page 24

-----

Funny how that one doesn't appear in the list (from the post on latest page).


I originally posted these here http://o.forums.go.com/abc/primetime/bostonlegal/message?messageID=11907626 during a discussion on signing statements in general. You can see that it clearly came from the original link I posted in this thread, but it appears to have been removed now.

:wtf: !!

edited to add - that date doesn't even appear on their list for the year! This was in the week ending Jan 13, 2006, and they have no listing there at all for that date!

[salin]

17. Knowing what to look for is a big part of the battle.

Good work.

[me b zola]

18. Thanks for that info

I just spent some time going down the list of links at that site. It seemed as though it covered all of his "statements", but I had yet to come across a signing statement. I had a feeling that it was an edited list, and as someone above metioned, it helps when you know what you are looking for.

This is deeply troubling.

[Sydnie]

20. Yet, one from Clinton that I had read previously at the other site

IS in that list. It appears that they have removed blivet's** only maybe? I haven't looked through the whole list and most that I saw before I did not document unfortunately. Perhaps they have just removed the latest ones? I will have to check it out closer later.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_51_36/ai_70655391

[bear425]

13. Look here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2672508

on edit: Of course, you should be able to search and retrieve the documents the conventional way. Did you try the wayback machine?

further edit: wayback machine results: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/search.html

**nothing since march '05

[helderheid]

43. Lesson: You think it's damning and online, SCREEN CAPTURE is our friend

[Sydnie]

46. boy, have I learned that lesson this weekend! n/t

[lostnfound]

16. K&R nt

[w8liftinglady]

21. I wouldn't put it past them to sanitize the site..I'm sure there is a

statement to that effect under the guise of executive power.

[Tigress DEM]

36. Rubber stamped by Sam Alieto. nt

[Emit]

23. Cheney's role in Signing Statements

I had been aware of Bush's* signing statements, but Cheney's role in this was news to me:

Washington D.C.
Cheney is Watching: Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff reviews all pending legislation for language that could limit the president's power, The Boston Globe reported this week. Before the president signs any bills, Cheney's chief aide, David Addington, reportedly examines it for provisions that could be used to restrict presidential authority. When such provisions are found, the president adds a statement during the signing ceremony, noting that he does not consider himself bound by statutory limits on his constitutional powers. In his five years in office, President Bush has issued more than 750 such signing statements; fewer than 600 were issued by all previous presidents combined. Legal scholars say Cheney is the first vice president in history to routinely review legislation.

From The Week, June 9, 2006

[Greyskye]

24. simply incredible

My bookmarked link to the signing statements is not even responding.

Lesson learned: If it has anything to do with this administration, save a local copy to your own hard drive. :banghead:

K & R

[NMDemDist2]

26. won't they be on whitehouse.gov somewhere? n/t

[Sydnie]

28. They have always been available from the

Government Printing Office web site, well since they started logging them there when Clinton was in office. A simple search was all that was needed to find them before. That search now turns up "error" and "no document found" returns. Even when browsing the list of files available, they show as being there, but return the same "no document found" results when you attempt to retrieve them.

[NMDemDist2]

29. ok that's just odd

glad you're digging into it sydnie! :yourock:

[The_Warmth]

30. Has anyone contacted

the website to see what their reason is?

[Sydnie]

32. It's the weekend ... can't imagine

you could navigate through the government phone system that easily. If there were other things that gave the same error message, then I would say there might be a problem on their end in their database, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Both the text links and the pdf links for the signing statements return the same "no document" message no matter which way you attempt to reach it.

[TroglodyteScholar]

31. k&r n/t

[rumpel]

33. Kicked & recommended

[snot]

34. Kicking -- please keep this alive! nt

[Tigress DEM]

35. 1984 all over..

I read is a long long time ago, but living it is even scarier.

Orwell, how did you know?

[mom cat]

37. The Boston Globe did the article on the signing statements. Maybe

they would still have the info. They might also be willing to run the story on the dissapearances.

[Toots]

38. If you know about them the terrorist will win

Why do you hate America anyway?

[greiner3]

39. Those who control the past...

[myrna minx]

40. Kick. Shocking. n/t

:kick:

[Sydnie]

41. I just called Charlie Savage

He is the reporter that wrote the Boston Globe article. Unfortunately, I got his Washington voice mail, so I left a message with my concerns and my contact info. Hopefully, he will call me back and we can do a bit of brainstorming about his sources or at the very least put me in contact with them through him.

I checked the site again this morning and there are still no documents found for these searches or through browsing either.

If there is anyone in the DC area that could give the GPO a call and ask why there is no online access, that would be helpful.

GPO contact info is here - http://www.gpo.gov/contacts.htm#

[Heywood J]

42. It's Monday

and I'm getting some of them, at least - using the link provided in the OP and going through 2006. For example, I'm seeing the one for the Patriot Act (http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=124398222713+6+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve), the Deficit Reduction Act (http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=124398222713+4+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve), etc, both of which mention the "unitary executive" crap, and a whole host of others.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi?WAIStemplate=multidb_results.html&WAISqueryRule=%24WAISqueryString&WAISdbName=2006_presidential_documents+Weekly+Compilation+of+Presidential+Documents+%282006%29&WAISqueryString=signing+statement&Submit.=Submit&WAISmaxHits=50&WrapperTemplate=wcomp_wrapper.html

Does this mean they're back up, or that others are missing?

[Sydnie]

45. Quite interesting!

I tried this very search less than an hour ago and could not bring up a thing!

I have several saved, so I will try to match them and see if any words were changed in any way at all.

thank you for following up!

[riderinthestorm]

44. Kicking.

Wow. Just wow. This is really shocking.

Kicking in hopes that someone in Washington sees the plea for a phone call, and has the time and energy to spend a few moments on this today.....

[lonestarnot]

47. Muthafucka dictating nazi!

[chill_wind]

49. Keep this alive

Any eventual explanation from the webmaster should be very very interesting.
Preferably a live voice conversation.

[lonestarnot]

51. kick

[elehhhhna]

48. THE SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE HERE:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/search.html

PICK A YEAR, TYPE "Statement on signing", hit enter. They are titled
"Statement on Signing the bblah blah whatever..."

ENJOY!

Look here's one now:

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=126104232096+11+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

[lonestarnot]

50. Thank you!