So, many of you are probably familiar with the practice of Presidential "Signing Statements". Its akin to tacking on a contract as you endorese a check, or in this case, putting a stamp with your signature that says you can interperet the law in its execution.

 

Now, a task force (non-partisan, BTW) set up by the American Bar Association has concluded that such statements, at least in the use of this particular administration, are dangerous and possibly Unconstitutional:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/law...h.ap/index.html

 

Bush has done it over 800 times now. All other Presidents combined in history: 600.

 

This particular slap in the face of due process by BushCo makes me more angry than most. Its as if he is saying he can interperet any law in any way he likes, based on his needs. And he puts that stamp on pretty much everything he signs. Not a few specific ones that he takes issue with.

 

How do others feel about this? Do you agree that there is a seperation of powers conflict here?

The Presidential office has grown far beyond what the founders intended. Since the early part of the 20th century, Presidents have given themselves more and more power. They were never meant to single-handidly run the country, as they seem to now.

 

This is just another (large) step down the same path.

It's all about the Unitary Executive, baby. Must be good to the Da King.

 

[Damn, where did I put that pukey-face smiley. . . ?]

Oh, how i can't wait for a strict constructionalist opinion on this....

Oh, how i can't wait for a strict constructionalist opinion on this....

 

Son, we're fighting a war on terra and terror.

'nuff said

It all sounds so democratic.