uggabugga

HOME RSS | .

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Alito - wrong on presidential Signing Statements:

Over at TPM we read:

Sam Alito ... wrote that "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress."

Josh Marshall has cogent things to say about the Constitution and who is supposed to make laws (only Congress), but the focus here is on Alito.

The president's approval is not just as important as that of the House or Senate. The president by himself, cannot get a law enacted. Congress can. Congress can pass a law and have it signed or, if vetoed, override the president. (Admittedly, with a requirement of a larger majority, but the power is there.)

Is this the kind of casual reasoning we can expect from Alito? Looks like it.

posted by Quiddity at 1/18/2006 06:26:00 AM

2 comments

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress."

Will Alito will apply this same reasoning when a Democrat is elected President? Somehow, methinks not.

Shorter Alito: "I'm Bush's man all the way!"

By Anonymous, at 1/18/2006 12:02 PM

Meaning, not Legal understanding

If there is an uncertainty in what the bill says, then I appreciate the President telling us how he interprets it, so that Congress can pass a new bill to clarify their position. On the other hand, neither Congress or the President has a significant voice as to whether the law applies to the President or not, that is the purpose of the Supreme court, Thus any Presidential signing statement that he feels a law does not apply to him should be a prima facie case for appealing it to the court with the Congress being the plaintive.

Thus: I would agree with Alito's concept that the President should state how, and if, he plans to execute that law.

If he does not plan to execute the law or plans to do it in a different way than the Congress desired, then the Attorney General should sue the President to determine if the constitution permits such Presidentual "inaction", or the Congress should pass a law that more "accurately" defines the law.

In the case of the torture law the President had stated that he will not obey the law and thus I suggest should be sued by the Attorney General for conspiring to disobey the law.

By Mike Liveright, at 1/18/2006 2:41 PM