A NEW Bush Signing Statement - Says He MAY IGNORE New War-Funding Law

[kpete]

October 18, 2006

Bush says he may ignore new war-funding law

By William Matthews
Staff report


Congress said it wants next year’s defense budget to include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but President Bush has indicated he may ignore that request.

In a “signing statement” released when he signed the 2007 Defense Authorization Act on Oct. 17, the president listed two dozen provisions in the act that he indicated he may or may not abide by.


Among the provisions is Section 1008 of the Authorization Act, which requires the president to submit defense budgets for 2008 and beyond that include funding for the wars and contain “a detailed justification of the funds requested.”

The Bush administration has frequently ignored requirements that it does not like by proclaiming exclusions from the law in signing statements, which are written statements about how the president plans to interpret the law. Since he became president, Bush has issued statements carving out exceptions to more than 750 laws — a rate far higher than any previous president.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he “would not be surprised” if Bush ignores the budgeting requirements spelled out in Section 1008.

more at:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2295747.php

[Lasher]

1. And he will be taken to task by the new Congress for for breaking the law

These signing statements carry no legal weight. The budgeting requirements of Section 1008 became law when the Chump-in-Chief signed the bill. I'm looking forward to fireworks just like this when Democrats control Congress.

[radfringe]

2. makes you wonder why the rubberstamp repubs

even bother to show up and pass any kind of legislation

even after stamping some bill with happy-happy faces - bushes goes and exempts himself

[katinmn]

3. Congress can't bitch now. It gave up its power to Bush

No more checks and balances, it's just theater now.

[Ms. Toad]

4. Signing statements are not exclusions or exceptions

:rant: Bush does not have the legal authority to modify the laws passed by Congress. What he is signing is merely his interpretation of the law - which courts are completely free to ignore,and routinely have ignored. (Congressional intent is relevant when the law is ambiguous, but the executive branch does not create law so executive intent is not relevant. >> Twenty years ago, as a lawyer in the Reagan administration, Samuel Alito pioneered the use of presidential signing statements as a way of expanding executive power at the expense of Congress. Since then, though, these statements have been largely ignored by the Supreme Court.<< http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009182.php ) :rant:

I am NOT ranting at the OP, who merely quoted yet another report which inaccurately ascribes to the cretin in chief's grab of far more power than he has any legal right to. He's gonna try to grab it - but lets not roll over and play dead until after the Supreme Court decides that his statements carry legal weight, which they have so far refused to do even in cases decided after Alito joined the Supremes. (Alito did join a dissent arguing that the signing statements carry weight - but the whole point of a dissent is that he lost that argument).