Signing Statements and Iraq

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Then what is the point of a signing statement if it doesn’t give more power to the executive? I am genuinely curious about this.[/quote]

My understaning is this. The President can get cute with interpretation. And then the various government departments supposedly refer to the statement as how to interpret the application of legislation in carrying out their activities. I don’t believe they’re legally bound to use the President’s interpretation, but often enough do.

Now, back to my original issue with this specific case. I don’t see how funding permanent bases falls within the power of the Executive. Congress sends a bill with some language saying “here’s some money for the effort in Iraq, but you mustn’t use this to establish permanent bases.” Bush then turns around and targets that language with a signing statement. It comes off as if he is reserving the power to unilaterally fund permanent bases with part of the money congress has approved (but not for permanent bases).

This has become a mess because we’re fighting an open ended war that wasn’t formally declared.

22

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Then what is the point of a signing statement if it doesn’t give more power to the executive? I am genuinely curious about this.[/quote]

To act as a check on Congress from encroaching on the constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch in the enforcement of the laws.

As in “I will sign this and enforce this law, but I will not enforce it under this particular application or circumstance because it would impinge on my co-equal constitutional privileges to carry out my duties as I see fit”.

There are checks and balances, but the President is co-equal and has his own set of constitutional duties/prerogatives. He is not the lapdog of Congress. Signing statements, for better or for worse, are often the battlefield of the tug of war between those authorities.