Hearing for signing statements now taking place: link to watch it.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1969

Click the webcast button at the top right.

:kick:

Witness List
Hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee
on

"The Use of Presidential Signing Statements"

Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226
10:00 a.m.

PANEL I

Michelle Boardman
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Justice
Washington, DC

Panel II

Charles J. Ogletree
Professor
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Christopher S. Yoo
Professor
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nashville, Tennessee

Bruce Fein
Partner
Fein & Fein LLC
Washington, DC

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Professor
Georgetown Law Center
Washington, DC

it. Messed up. They had to reschedule. No one showed up to defend the administration at the hearing.

(no matter how wrong they are) - arrogant, as usual

I thought there was a subpoena to appear in front of a Congressional Committee? That's so arrogant & dismissive in the extreme. They're basically tauting Congress & saying that it's irrelevant - and it might be.

the gummint.

about following the Constitution by vetoeing vs. signing statements right now. :shrug:

Not that I expect real action, but Bush's "innovative" interpretation of the Constitutional separation of powers is definitely worth looking into.

Hopefully, Hatch will stay in the Chamber and skip the hearing. :puke: Besides, there's enough Cons on the committee he won't be missed.

She's completely dodging his question. She's choosing to "talk about framework rather than answer the questions."

blah blah blah

Anyone notice someone missing from that list?

Specter trying to push her into answers. She's dodging.

astounding 110 times!

Are you familiar with that term? LOL!

:puke:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1969

Click on the Webcast button. :hi:

I would have thought for sure it would have been on TV.

NOT!!!

amendment (based on the signing statement)?

B: No, Senator. Let's look at his public statements.

WTF?

The Cons are there with all out spin and support. :puke: CLINTON DID IT, dontcha know. :puke:

bill.

Time for a little help from your friends, I guess.

edit to correct to Cornyn

testimony. These people are despicable.

were as good at countering their tactics.

And HOW MANY of these statements did Pres. Clinton sign? And Pres. Bush?

:grr:

and not the Supreme Court.

he has decided to enforce?

She dodges, he pushes. Go Ted!!!

these signing statements? What laws will he or won't he enforce?

"What laws has Congress passed that are on the books does this president feel he's not going to enforce?"
Needs to ensure accountability to the American people, at least legislatively.

Asked Specter about getting some legislation for making the President notify Congress/the People what he will or will not enforce.

Michelle Boardman
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Justice
Washington, DC

Michelle Boardman's comments

Purpose and history of signing statements

legitimate/important function

congress should fear signing statements

signing statements are not an attempt to "cherry-pick" the law

they are meant to secure executive power/separation of powers

President has a duty to protect/defend...execute the law

every President since DDE has signed S.O.'s

A President has said - in their signing..."will not follow an unconstitutional law...and sign signing statements against laws they feel contain laws that are unconstitutional"


(this is especially funny - and not funny haha - since Shrub signs signing statements TO violate the Constitution)

She just said signing statements are to show an "open and public" statement of the President's view...(yet signing statements were removed from the public view just last week.)

(There was a government link where you could look up signing statements ...last week those signing statements of Bush were removed...you can find the link in my journal...yet last week another poster pointed out the signing statements were removed..and I checked myself..I could NO LONGER pull up Bush's signing statements...)

She's calling signing statements a sign of respect to the Congress from the executive...because a President could veto...instead he voices his concern with a signing statement

President has a duty to protect outside information...and when congress passes laws touching on executive foreign relation policies/implementation...and Bush signs signing statements to "protect" his "duty" to keep information "secure"

(she's being asked about the term "unitary executive"...and the vast number of times Bush has used the term to circumvent laws)

Michelle Boardman's response

Claims people don't understand what "unitary executive" means. "Unitary executive" "theory" just explains the power of the executive....

(now speaking of the torture amendment..asked if she believes Bush can torture people as his signing statement suggested)

Michelle Boardman's response .."we should listen to what Bush says in public about torture and he said no torture"

and that "we" should be honest that there are times when the (certain aspects of the) constitution (due process) should be put aside

(now being asked if everyone is bound by law)

Michelle Boardman's response ...yeah.. unless a President decides not to...signing statements do not point out every constitutional error in a bill..it's up to the executive to "determine" that...(what is and isn't constitutional)

She's back to every president since DDE has signed them...and getting softballed...allowing her to speak on how innocuous signing statements are and how they're no big deal...and how it's the executives duty

Kennedy now asking her questions.... quoting her own testimony...."President has determined a statutory law violates the constitution..not the SCOTUS...but the President"...so he issues a signing statement..

So Kennedy is asking doesn't Congress and the people have the right to know which laws on the books Bush has decided he will not follow because he has determined they are unconstitutional

She is not answering...and Kennedy is hammering the question again...and she keeps not answering

She now says "I don't know the answer to that" - "which laws are on the books that violate the constitution according to Bush's thinking?"

Feingold - Speaking on torture amendment and Bush's signing statement to it.

On the Patriot Act now and how Bush circumvented oversight

Michelle Boardman's response

I think Bush has been clear...now using Clinton's name

Feingold keeps asking if Bush believes he can deny Congress oversight/reporting

She keeps hedging and spinning...

Feinstein up now...making a statement

on the expansion of power of the executive..es

:)

Keeps bringing that up.

Feingold up now. :woohoo:

He cuts her off to make her answer the question
:rofl:

and don't mean he won't enforce the law.'

Sure.

admin will have a lasting (negative inferred) impact.

:grr:

keeps cutting out! :banghead:

Panel II

Charles J. Ogletree
Professor
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Speaking on the separation of powers/regarding signing statements

Signing statements are not, in and of themselves, objectionable

The problem is how they are used by Bush...instead of vetoes...Bush uses them to challlenge Congress and laws

Legislative function...challenges they face by the signing statements of Bush...and that Congress needs to challenge Bush on these signing statements (he called them an abuse of power)

Great issue here is one of transparencey....Bush frustrates the intent of Congress and avoids having this matters examined by a higher court...especially when he claims his signing statements are in regard to a constitutional question and then prevents the courts from looking into it

Message:
Christopher S. Yoo
Professor
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nashville, Tennessee

Co-author of the "unitary executive"

More on the long history of signing statements back to Monroe..and moving on to other Presidents that have signed them....bringing up FDR...

Saying majority of signing statements have been uncontroversial

and that they are not partisan in nature and we can expect that trend to continue into the future

claims signing statements show the executives duty of how they (the executive) understands that statute...and if they (the executive) interpret the statute as constitutional or not...

executive role in statutory interpretation....

executive determining the constitutionality of a statute

signing statements enhance system of checks and balance (not the way Bush uses them it doesn't)

Specter will give this lady some 'homework'. But first!

Panel II

Charles J. Ogletree
Professor
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Christopher S. Yoo
Professor
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nashville, Tennessee

Bruce Fein
Partner
Fein & Fein LLC
Washington, DC

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Professor
Georgetown Law Center
Washington, DC

President's using signing statements are not a question. It's Bush using them to interpret the laws that is a question.

Urges the committee to create the laws to challenge this use of authority to create the balance.

typing badly though, but I'll try

:hi:

typing badly though, but I'll try

having these matters reviewed by a court.'

It's time for Congress to take the matter very seriously. It's not only bad policy, but creates unilateral branch of authority.

Christopher S. Yoo
Professor
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nashville, Tennessee


Clerked for Justice Kennedy.

Citing references.

interbranch dialogue necessary....

*sigh*

here comes who ??

and once again, the feed farts on me. :argh:

microsoft.

All of a sudden, the witness is repeating and I have to close and reload. Seems they didn't expect too many people to be watching. :shrug:

prez has no power to veto part of bill and let the rest become law.

Founding fathers required this. Political change is no excuse to avoid law....no excuse to say government too complicated now...talking of cases with previous presidents.

Prez must make difficult decisions...must faithfully execute his office...must veto a bill completely

:argh:

cspan..it's ok now

Bruce Fein
Partner
Fein & Fein LLC
Washington, DC

Giving a historical background of executive power

Appropriate response for the Congress should take when a President announces he will not follow aspects of a law...judicial resolution between congress and president...short of impeachment

It was the President's duty to veto a bill he finds unconstitutional and not just claim he won't enforce/adhere to it...or parts of it.



Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Professor
Georgetown Law Center
Washington, DC

Signing statements do not reserve the right to disobey the law...(tell that to Bush)


Calls all this an "unwarranted brouhaha" over signing statements

Claims (to Specter) that Congress gave an unfair reading to the signing statement of the torture amendment...that Bush was just protecting his constitutional duty..(to protect and defend)

Calling it "novel" for congress to protest the president is not vetoing enough bills ....when a bill is - might be- unconstitutional

(OK...I want to smack Rosenkranz)

but better late than never... What's going on today? :hi:

Here's breakfast! :donut:

Did not get hardly any viewing, but is directly linked to this hearing today....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1508289&mesg_id=1508289

Little fucker!

a complete tool. He may as well give Cornyn a blow job while he is there.

this guy is unreal???

this guy is unreal???

(Frankly, Rosenkrantz is talking legaleze out of both sides as far as I can tell)

just got it back, and now it's looping ---crap

Goody! A five minute break for coffee and ...

what a puke :puke:

I :puke: on a daily basis....

read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1508289&mesg_id=1508289

they all make me puke. :puke:

talking.

Is the hearing still going on?

Thread 2:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1516458