Latest Signing Statement: Blackwater and Iraq 4eva!

[SirNitram]

White House Press Release.

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. 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.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

Now, what are these four provisions?

Thomas.loc.gov

841: Comission On Wartime Contracting In Iraq and Afghanistan. Reconstruction, security, infrastructure contracting all under one comission. It's to assess dependence, waste, fraud, and holding folks accountable.

846: Protection for contractor whistleblowers. It's updating existing protection so that whisteblowers can go to others, including the Government Accountability Office and the DoD Oversight personnel, instead of just Congress.

1079: Communications with the Armed Forces Committees regarding intel. It puts a time limit on how long the spooks can sit on requests from Congress without some kind of response.

And the finale...

1222: It controls funds. For what? Permenant bases and 'Exercising US Control of Iraqi Oil'.

In short: The President has decreed by fiat that he can keep the US in Iraq perpetually, seize the oil, and blow off anyone who happens to come forward to show that the contractors are, oh, I dunno, using chemical weapons on US troops.

[NeoGoomba]

Wow, it was like the first three were the reach around and then number four just delivers the goods.

Lets say some kooky Democrat becomes President next term. How hard would it be for them to abolish these statements?

[SirNitram]

Wow, it was like the first three were the reach around and then number four just delivers the goods.

Lets say some kooky Democrat becomes President next term. How hard would it be for them to abolish these statements?

In theory, an executive order would wipe them away. Of course, it could just as easily become levers for them. So much power funneled into the Presidency, because there was going to be a Permenant Republican Majority.

[Flagg]

Wow, it was like the first three were the reach around and then number four just delivers the goods.

Lets say some kooky Democrat becomes President next term. How hard would it be for them to abolish these statements?

They don't actually need to, as they are unconstitutional.

[Glocksman]

Wow, it was like the first three were the reach around and then number four just delivers the goods.

Lets say some kooky Democrat becomes President next term. How hard would it be for them to abolish these statements?

They don't actually need to, as they are unconstitutional.

That they may be, but the real problem with signing statements as GWB abuses them is that SCOTUS uses them as a window into what the Executive intended when it signed the laws.

Now if the Executive's intent is cleary unconstitutional, than it's no problem.
But if there's a 'gray area' then the Supreme Court's historical tendency to defer to the other branches can be a problem.

[Flagg]

Wow, it was like the first three were the reach around and then number four just delivers the goods.

Lets say some kooky Democrat becomes President next term. How hard would it be for them to abolish these statements?

They don't actually need to, as they are unconstitutional.

That they may be, but the real problem with signing statements as GWB abuses them is that SCOTUS uses them as a window into what the Executive intended when it signed the laws.

Now if the Executive's intent is cleary unconstitutional, than it's no problem.
But if there's a 'gray area' then the Supreme Court's historical tendency to defer to the other branches can be a problem.

Yeah, except they are essentially line item vetoes, which are clearly unconstitutional. The executive branch carries out the law, it does not interpret it. The Supreme Court does that.