DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**primaveraloler** · 05-01-2007, 12:55 PM

A signing statement does not change a law in any way shape or form.

Not necessarily, but it has the power to. Laws are ambiguous, and signing statements give the executive the last say in interpretation. This can be dangerous or helpful, depending on how you look at it, but it is hard to say that a signing statement doesn't affect the law "in any way".

Samuel Alito, former Justice Department official under Reagan: [http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-...WG-Feb1986.pdf]. Upon reading this, one can take it cynically or constructively. I don't really know, though it seems that Alito's claim that Presidential understanding of a bill "is just as important" as Congressional understanding undercuts the Constitutional clause, "All legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." He says candidly about interpretive signing statements, "it would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law."

It’s been done before by democrats. This is for emergency conditions only and does not include private citizens not involved in terrorism.

Source?

Heck, the govt can have my mail if they think it will help track down terrorists. Unlike neolibs, some of us are happy to help protect this country.

That's wonderful. Feel free to go about lobbying for zero privacy in the name of protecting this country. Or put yourself in prison, that may have the same effect, jviehe.

About the actual signing statement itself, the words are ambiguous, which is to be expected: The article has claimed that it provides the full signing statement, though that is false; here it is: [President's Statement on H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"], and here is the law itself, [Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)]. The second to last paragraph, as quoted in the article, is the relevant one. From one point of view, the President may just be pointing out that sometimes attaining a warrant beforehand will result in danger or death to certain persons and is therefore unrealistic; from another point of view, the President could be using some vague terminology to justify expanded government privilege at looking at your mail. I'm guessing that it is a little of both, personally.

05-01-2007, 12:55 PM	#9
primaveraloler Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	A signing statement does not change a law in any way shape or form. Not necessarily, but it has the power to. Laws are ambiguous, and signing statements give the executive the last say in interpretation. This can be dangerous or helpful, depending on how you look at it, but it is hard to say that a signing statement doesn't affect the law "in any way". Samuel Alito, former Justice Department official under Reagan: [http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-...WG-Feb1986.pdf]. Upon reading this, one can take it cynically or constructively. I don't really know, though it seems that Alito's claim that Presidential understanding of a bill "is just as important" as Congressional understanding undercuts the Constitutional clause, "All legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." He says candidly about interpretive signing statements, "it would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." It’s been done before by democrats. This is for emergency conditions only and does not include private citizens not involved in terrorism. Source? Heck, the govt can have my mail if they think it will help track down terrorists. Unlike neolibs, some of us are happy to help protect this country. That's wonderful. Feel free to go about lobbying for zero privacy in the name of protecting this country. Or put yourself in prison, that may have the same effect, jviehe. About the actual signing statement itself, the words are ambiguous, which is to be expected: The article has claimed that it provides the full signing statement, though that is false; here it is: [President's Statement on H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"], and here is the law itself, [Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)]. The second to last paragraph, as quoted in the article, is the relevant one. From one point of view, the President may just be pointing out that sometimes attaining a warrant beforehand will result in danger or death to certain persons and is therefore unrealistic; from another point of view, the President could be using some vague terminology to justify expanded government privilege at looking at your mail. I'm guessing that it is a little of both, personally.
	Quote