ABA Rejects Presidential Signing Statements
July 24, 2006 11:22 AM   Subscribe

In June, the American Bar Association created a task force to investigate President Bush's use of signing statements to qualify his approval of certain laws. Some of the members of the task force, among others, testified before Congress, and today the task force issued its final report and recommendations [pdf]. Its conclusion: "American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress."
posted by monju_bosatsu (42 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Oops: created.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:23 AM on July 24, 2006


It then added, "no duh."
posted by fleacircus at 11:24 AM on July 24, 2006


If the ABA thinks that Bush (or anyone in his administration) gives a shit what they say, they are living in an alternate dimension.
posted by blucevalo at 11:28 AM on July 24, 2006


How is this any more than an empty gesture?
posted by Zozo at 11:29 AM on July 24, 2006


In July, the American Bars Association created a task force to investigate President Bush's use of intoxicants to qualify his disapproval of certain laws of physics. Some of the members of the task force, among others, testified before Congress, and today the task force issued its final report and recommendations: If you're going to be batshitinsane, anyway, you might as well go back on the sauce. Please come back to us. We'll start a tab.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:30 AM on July 24, 2006


Discussed yesterday. Perhaps this could have been a comment in that thread, but then it wouldn't get quite as many eyeballs.
posted by Plutor at 11:32 AM on July 24, 2006


How is this any more than an empty gesture?

...said the person whining on Metafilter.

Seriously though, you don't think it is a big deal to have the professional lawyer guild say that what a president is doing is unconstituional? When every mechanic you go to says your motorcycle has the same problem, that hasn't fixed the motorcycle, but at least you can be really, really certain your motorcycle is broken.
posted by Falconetti at 11:33 AM on July 24, 2006


Falconetti, it's a big deal because the Republicans running in 2008 will be able to use it to whip up their reliable voters in a frenzy of faux persecution.

Everyone knows that unions are liberal. The Bar Association is a union. So it hates Bush. Lawyers and liberals are the ones trying to keep the President from protecting us, and this is just more proof. Get out and vote! The nation's safety depends on you! Stop the ACLU! Zogzogzog!
posted by verb at 11:37 AM on July 24, 2006


Good. (And I'm once again thrilled by the defeatist attitude of MeFi. I'm still not sure what people who think this means nothing want, that they can actually get.)
posted by OmieWise at 11:39 AM on July 24, 2006


Hey, cynicism is the main ingredient in a bowl of snark.
posted by solipse at 11:43 AM on July 24, 2006


Falconetti, to whom is it even news that this motorcycle is not only broken, but is actually probably a rusted-out velocipede?

Like blucevalo said, nobody in the Bush administration cares what the ABA has to say. This isn't going to affect a goddamned thing. It'll makes Bush's opponents feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it's not going to affect his policies or behaviour one whit.

So instead of being a shithead, why don't you explain to me how this is, in fact, more than an empty gesture, amounting to less than even the lightest of slaps on the wrist?
posted by Zozo at 11:44 AM on July 24, 2006


I'm still not sure what people who think this means nothing want, that they can actually get.

Being defeatists, I'm pretty sure we don't think we can get anything.

Not even ice cream. :(
posted by Zozo at 11:44 AM on July 24, 2006


Breaking news: President Bush has just signed a signing statement indicating that all previous signing statements are now exempt from any outmoded restrictions like being against the law. Return to your work nodes, citizens!
posted by Aquaman at 11:46 AM on July 24, 2006


After reading the report, I have to say that I don't find it particularly convincing. There is certainly a policy argument to be made that the President should veto any bill he believes to be unconstitutional, rather than signing and qualifying his approval with a signing statement. However, the report is pretty light on any legal support for the proposition that such a policy preference should be constitutionalized. Indeed, it's ironic that the report's suggested alternatives--legislation allowing judicial review of signing statements and allowing the President to refer legislation directly to the judiciary for review--are more clearly unconstitutional than the use of signing statements. It's as if the authors of the report never heard of advisory opinions or the political question doctrine. As I said previously, "the notion that the Executive Branch has at least some power to interpret the Constitution and refuse to follow laws it views as unconstitutional is historically well-grounded."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:52 AM on July 24, 2006


These must be those "activist litigators" I'm about to hear so much about.
posted by shmegegge at 11:55 AM on July 24, 2006


I think this is a step in the right direction and I commend the ABA for have the cajones to step up. It will be interesting to see how the Admin spins it. Anyhow I thought the ABA was more of an accrediting organization than a union.
posted by Skygazer at 11:57 AM on July 24, 2006


Anyhow I thought the ABA was more of an accrediting organization than a union.

It's neither, really. The states run the accreditation system for lawyers. As long as you've passed the bar, or are a law student, you can join the ABA. You pay the dues, you're a member. It's also not a union, because there's is no non-union management side of the equation.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:01 PM on July 24, 2006


Everyone knows that unions are liberal.

Oh, yes, those dirty, tree-hugging, pot-smoking hippie trial lawyers.

I can't say any of the lawyers I've met are radical liberals. Most lawyers certainly aren't anything close.
posted by oaf at 12:02 PM on July 24, 2006


Ah, but there are a lot of non-batshit-insane Bush/Repugnican supporters who haven't seen credible evidence that his use of signing statements is out-of-the-mainstream legal thought. If this pushes only 500 of them to abandon their last hope that he isn't a power-mad cowboy, then it is worth it.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:04 PM on July 24, 2006


Shsssssh! You'll wake the Republican Base. Then you'll be the one who has to sterilize the ever widening public funding nipple so they can suckle their nutritionless pork and then burp taxes all over you.
posted by srboisvert at 12:06 PM on July 24, 2006 [1 favorite]


So instead of being a shithead, why don't you explain to me how this is, in fact, more than an empty gesture, amounting to less than even the lightest of slaps on the wrist?

The ABA isn't an enforcement origanization. It doesn't have the authority to arrest or impeach the President, sorry. All they can do is testify in Congress and file a report and hold debates and publish boring trade magazines, etc. I tried to explain why I thought this was more than a completely useless gesture. To state more clearly, the ABA has some modicum of promience, so it is somewhat important that they have come out against signing statements. You seem to be under the impression that the ABA could somehow do more, but they can't.

As to my little joke from before that made you so ornery, I'm sowwy.
posted by Falconetti at 12:22 PM on July 24, 2006


Radicals are liberals or groups of liberals with an odd (unpaired) number of elections.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:23 PM on July 24, 2006 [6 favorites]


In the context of what the ABA is and does, I suppose this has some symbolic significance. In the context of Bush & Co. doing their thing regardless of any criticism or contrary opinion, I think the conflation in your "little joke" might be awfully apt: the ABA is being about as productive issuing this statement as I am by whining on MetaFilter. The difference is, nobody's reporting on my half-assed pithicisms like they mean a damn thing.
posted by Zozo at 12:33 PM on July 24, 2006


The ABA acredits law schools.
posted by Carbolic at 12:39 PM on July 24, 2006


Surely this...
posted by mrnutty at 12:42 PM on July 24, 2006


Kings, who are appointed by Gods, are not bound by the same laws as men.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:44 PM on July 24, 2006


Double.
posted by bardic at 12:45 PM on July 24, 2006


bardic: The report was released today. It's not exactly a double post.
posted by oaf at 12:47 PM on July 24, 2006


MY bridge club is planning to issue a stinging rebuke too.
posted by Cranberry at 1:20 PM on July 24, 2006


SCOTUSblog has some commentary, particularly questioning the viability of the ABA Task Force's recommendations under Article III.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:28 PM on July 24, 2006


Seems to me the US is, for the first time, discovering the challenge of removing a President who doesn't care to be removed. I don't think you've ever had to forceably remove a President without resorting to violence.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:37 PM on July 24, 2006


What? It was attempted with the last president. That's what impeachment is. I'm confused by what you're trying to get at fff.
posted by OmieWise at 1:43 PM on July 24, 2006


"In June, the American Bar Association created a task force to investigate President Bush's use of signing statements to qualify his approval of certain laws. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the ABA-Team."
posted by kaseijin at 1:44 PM on July 24, 2006


Only one group can definitively opine on this issue, the Supreme Court. This report is kind of like a preemptory amicus brief.
posted by caddis at 1:59 PM on July 24, 2006


Signing statements basically amounts to a post hoc line item veto, which has already been held to be unconstitutional

In any case, I doubt signing statements will have any more persuasive force than legislative histories, if that.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:01 PM on July 24, 2006


"So instead of being a shithead, why don't you explain to me how this is, in fact, more than an empty gesture, amounting to less than even the lightest of slaps on the wrist?"

Because the President doesn't rule the country as a dictator.

There are (gasp) Republicans who are both lawyers and legislators, and who are likely to both be swayed by persuasive arguments and distance themselves from things seen as damaging in the eye of public opinion. Further, this report gives more ammunition to Republican legislators who feel that their power is being diminished by a strong executive in ways that they don't like. Believe it or not, not every member of the dominant party agrees, and many of them have issues with the President's use of signing statements. Their diminished support means that they're likely to either try writing laws that are closer to what the President has indicated he will execute (thus often making them less palatable to the general congress) or write laws that require vetos in order to call the President's bluff on some issues (most likely local spending ones).
While this will be undermined by the Republican spin machine ("Of course trial lawyers don't like the President. McDonalds coffee lawsuit family farms taxes malpractice suits"), it will still have an effect on many of the more moderate members, especially in the Senate, which has historically viewed itself as more independent and a check on Presidential power.

And the reason that you got a snarky response was because you were wandering around and saying the equivalent of "I voted for Kerry, but he's not president. Obviously, voting's no good." Out in the real world, representative democracies turn slowly, with many hands on the rudder. This is a prestigious organization proving more rhetorical power to a select group whose exercise of political power shapes our country's policy.
(I see the same objections all the time to the UN, especially from Republicans. "They just talk! It doesn't mean anything until you bomb someone! Ka-pow! Bang! Weeeeee-booom!")
posted by klangklangston at 2:41 PM on July 24, 2006


What? It was attempted with the last president. That's what impeachment is.

That was what a spoof of an impeachment is.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:04 PM on July 24, 2006


ABBA's message to Bush:
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:12 PM on July 24, 2006




Here's a sad thing...

Our country.. in outrage.. impeaches the previous president for sexual relations and lying about them...

Our country.. in outrage.... has shown this president over and over again how wrong.. even unconstitutional .. his actions are....

Where did we stray...
posted by Raoul.Duke at 4:04 PM on July 24, 2006


Where did we stray...

Probably all the ellipses.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:37 PM on July 24, 2006


klangklangston, thanks for giving me a serious answer.
posted by Zozo at 6:47 PM on July 24, 2006


« Older Hot Summer, Hot Air?   |   Click survey 2, Electric Bugaloo Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments