Dems re signing statements - how hard is it just to do/say this??

gather all the congressional dems on the capitol steps.

"The US constitution says nothing about signing statements (wave copy). The US constituion says george w bush will enforce all laws passed by congress unless he vetoes them. George W Bush has no legal or moral authority to use any form of signing statement to violate lthe constitution and laws passed by the congress. George W Bush is violating his oath to uphold and defend the US constitution. George W Bush is committing crimes against the constitution and the american people."

There is NO NEED to go through any court or legislative process regarding signing statements. George W Bush can write anything he wants but if he attempts to enforce such statements he is committing a crime.

What is the proof to the contrary? Let the republicans defend their position before the american people.

Msongs

listen to our song demos!
www.msongs.com/msongsdemos.htm

to approve a line item veto, so George Bush made an executive decision and created the signing statement.

Brilliant crook.

all previous signing statements was something like 170-something, for all previous presidents combined, while * has come up with over 700. And I never heard of them prior to *, so don't know what the reality of it is -- was it previously a statement that said "I disagree with this, and I will work to change minds about this legislative error" because a veto would have been overturned anyway?

What are examples of those few previous signing statements? I somehow doubt that any of them claimed the authority to ignore the law that was just signed.

Anybody got some real info?

But it sounds like a signing statement, if used by prior presidents, were like the Supreme Court's dicta. Opinions that don't carry legal water. However, Bush's signing statements sound like they're being used like executive orders.

And the way Congress has been passing laws lately, there's often a TON of ways to interpret any given law. That's been a major issue that the Supreme Court has often complained about for the last decade or so.

So, to make that case, it's not only disingenuous, but it's factually incorrect. All laws are left up to interpretation. It's up to the Executive Branch to interpret the laws when putting them into application, and if anyone has a problem with it, that's why we have the Judicial Branch.

I don't like it any more than you do, but it's not that simple at all.

He did not swear to:
Spread Freedom
Defend the Flag
Free the Iraqi People
Overthrow Evildoers