Signing Off

National Review ^ | July 28, 2006 | Editorial

[gondramB]

The President Not this particularly but any President) can write anything he wants to. Its when he actually violates the law or the consitution that its a problem - and in that case it doesn't really matter that he wrote his reasons down.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

"________________________."

I cant disagree with you on this point.

[Common Tator]

What is unconstitutional is what ever the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional.

[tpaine]

Tator opines:

What is unconstitutional is what ever the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional.

You misunderstand the Constitution. The supreme court issues opinions on cases of law & fact arising before it.

Enforcing the laws at issue are left to legislative & executive branches of State or Fed gov'ts; -- ~all~ officials of which are bound to support and defend the US Constitution as written, --- not as per the ~opinions~ of judges or other officials.

Thus the power of the 'law', and of all branches of gov't are continually checked & balanced by sworn individual officials & juries-; -- and if enough of these individual 'jurors', at any level of any branch, question the constitutional validity of specific 'laws', -- back they go to the USSC for further opinions.

That's how the system should work at least.. We all know that politically both sides are ignoring the constitution.

[Phocion]

Can presidents really be expected to veto every piece of legislation that contains unconstitutional elements?

I really don't think that's too much to ask.

[trumandogz]

Have you ever noticed how these articles never mention how many times Clinton used his authority on signing statements?

I see Bush's use of signing statements as necessary to the fulfillment of his agenda for what he was elected TWO TIMES to accomplish! Hopefully, future presidents will use this power to control keep the Democrats in Congress in check.

[Phocion]

Hopefully, future presidents will use this power to control keep the Democrats in Congress in check.

Remember that future Democratic presidents will also use this power to keep the Republicans in Congress "in check".

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

While Quidnunc posted the article, he posted no comment, ergo, nothing to disagree with. While he did not state his view, I do not think that he agrees that the Supremes are the only and final arbiter of the constitution. If so, then I can also say that I still do not disagree with his unexpressed position.

[TexasTransplant]

Quidnunc rarely comments he/she has a long history of not having an opinion.

TT

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Whatnow? posts, watches, and provides an obscure or teasing comment. But He/She agrees because....

[Common Tator]

While he did not state his view, I do not think that he agrees that the Supremes are the only and final arbiter of the constitution.

It all goes back to the Jefferson Administration and Madison Vs Marbury decided in 1803.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that just because John Madison (the Madison in Madison Vs Marbury) wrote the Constitution didn't mean he knew what it meant.

Neither Madison (then Secretary of State) who wrote the constitution or Jefferson (then president) who wrote the declaration of independence disputed Chief Justice John Marshalls ruling that the SUPREME COURT WAS THE FINAL ABRITOR of what what the words in the Constitution mean.

If you had only been there to tell Madison, Jefferson, and Marshall they were all wrong, I'll bet things would have been a lot different.

[DumpsterDiver]

On the following website you can read the signing statements from 1929 through 2006.
Presidential Signing Statements
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

[TexasTransplant]

Can't read too much into it, if you think Quidnunc agrees or disagrees with anything that they have posted then you have bested me, I couldn't tell, I quit trying to figure it out after about 4 pages of posting history.

I bore easily

TT

[Badray]

Ping

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Quidnunc used to be more vocal back in the Clinton years.
There were thread wars and nasty comments and Quidnunc understandably went quiet. I am surprised that "Quidnunc" has not become "Ait Locutus" except that there are no longer any warlike Gauls around.

(Transplanted to or from Texas?)

[John Lenin]

Is Specter setting the President up for impeachment if the RATS take control ?

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

"He who does not speak out is assumed to consent..."

Which is the reason that it is assumed that they agreed with the chief Justice.

"just because John Madison (the Madison in Madison Vs Marbury) wrote the Constitution didn't mean he knew what it meant"

Look at the logic here. Certain men write a document that forms the basis of a government. Later, other men come along and claim that they, on the basis of the power granted to them by that same document are better able to interpret the meaning and intention of the document than the men who actually wrote the document that granted them the very power under which they act.

Now, Marbury is the law of the land, unless Congress passes a law that says Judges are not the final arbiters and the president supports them, or/and decides to rise up and sack the entire supreme court a. But does the argument of the Chief Justice make sense that they knew better than the men who wrote the document? And am I the one who acted urogenital or was it the court?

[TexasTransplant]

To Texas from New Orleans

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Sounds like a good move.