FreeDuck wrote:Thomas wrote:FreeDuck wrote:My question (probably better for another thread) is isn't that essentially changing the law at signing? And wouldn't that encroach on Congress's power to make laws?
I'd say so -- especially since congress doesn't have the chance to revise the statute when it thinks the President misunderstood its language. I envision something like this ...
Congress: There shall be a tax of five cents on each scoop of vanilla ice cream.
The president: In signing this bill into law, I am presuming that "vanilla" means "chocolate" for purposes of this statute.
Congress: No, wait! In writing "vanilla", we actually [i]did[/i] mean "vanilla".
The President: Too late, I already signed it into law. Nja-nja-nja-nja-njaaaa-nja!
Sorry for portraying "the president" as more intellectually mature than the actual president is likely to act.
That's kind of the impression that I got too. I have no idea how such a dispute would be settled.
The Supreme Court held that the "line-item veto" was unconstitutional. Keep that in mind as you consider the following:
The PRESENTMENT CLAUSE of the Constitution requires Congress, after they have passed a law, to present the law to the President. Upon presentation, the president has TEN days to exercise one of his affirmative options:
1) approve the enactment and sign it into law; or
2) disapprove (veto) the enactment by sending it back to the originating House WITH his OBJECTIONS.
(The negative option is to do nothing. If the president does nothing--does not approve and sign or return the enactment with his objections within 10 days--the enactment automatically becomes law UNLESS Congress has adjourned. If Congress has adjourned making it impossible for the President to return the enactment within 10 days with his objections, then the enactment does NOT become law. This is called the "pocket veto.")
Accordingly, the Constitution requires the President to approve the law as a whole, or reject the law as a whole. If the President signs the enactment, that constitutionally means that he approves of the entire enactment and the entire enactment becomes law. A congressional enactment that becomes law is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If the President refuses to approve and sign, he is constitutionally mandated to veto--to return the enactment to the originating house with his OBJECTIONS.
The veto gives Congress the opportunity to CONSIDER the president's objections and to make changes accordingly. However, CONGRESS is given CONSTITUTIONAL authority to OVERRIDE the president's objections. If two-thirds of the members of Congress vote to pass the enactment over the president's objections, then the enactment BECOMES LAW.
Thereafter, the president's CONSTITUTIONAL mandate is to take care to faithfully execute the laws of the United States--and that mandate to faithfully execute includes executing the laws that the president previously had objections when CONGRESS overrides his objections.
The LAW is the LAW--no one--not even the president is above the law. Congress makes the laws--the president executes the laws. Constitutionally, the president has ONLY ONE opportunity to object to the law and that objection must take place BEFORE the enactment becomes law so that CONGRESS may consider those objections. That's it; that's the whole story.
When Congress delegated statutory authority to the president to go through a law line by line AFTER it became law and veto portions thereof, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The line-item veto effectively allowed the president to amend or repeal portions of laws that he objected to. However, the president doesn't have constitutional authority to amend or repeal laws--that authority belongs exclusively to CONGRESS.
President Bush is now using SIGNING STATEMENTS to issue UNCONSTITUTIONAL back-door, line-item vetos and to deprive Congress of the opportunity to address and override the president's objections. President Bush has effectively rewritten his constitutional role in the law-making / law-enforcing system of our government. He has given himself a THIRD affirmative option that doesn't exist in the constitution:
CONSTITUTIONAL: 1) approve the enactment and sign it into LAW;
CONSTITUTIONAL: 2) disapprove (veto) the enactment and return it to the originating House with his objections; or
UNCONSTITUTIONAL: 3) disapprove the enactment but sign it into LAW anyway thus depriving Congress of its constitutionally-mandated opportunity to address the president's objections and then issue a post-hoc signing statement indicating the president's refusal to enforce the enactment that he himself just signed into law.
Accordingly, the President has negated the role of Congress, usurped all government powers, and effectively has rewritten the Constitution as follows:
"The President shall faithfully execute the LAWS of the United States except, in the president's sole discretion, he chooses NOT to execute the LAWS of the United States. The president is SUPREME--above the law--and can rule the country at his pleasure."
This PERVASIVE shift of power which creates a supreme dictator cannot take place by presidential fiat--but rather requires a Constitutional amendment. Inasmuch as no sane person would ever amend the Constitution to negate the rule of law and to grant the president the powers of a dictator, the President has clearly usurped power that doesn't belong to him and has single-handedly changed America from a land that was once ruled by LAW into a land that is ruled by the president.
CONGRESS must take action against the president and remove him from office. If Congress doesn't reclaim its power, every president from BUSH on will be a
de facto dictator and our laws will be relegated to mere advice that the president may follow or disregard at his pleasure.
