Talking to myself about foreign policy, US politics, technology, &c.

Executive Signing Statements are Enforced by Unicorns

Bush seems to have the idea that he can unilaterally change legislation by appending “signing statements” to bills that are passed by the branches of the government constitutionally empowered to, er, legislate.

There is a reason why we have a division of power. If the Founding Dads really wanted things like signing statements, they would have not have had the inconvenience of a Congress that did anything significant. Or a judiciary that could intervene in the Executive’s affairs. They might have come up with a system kinda like…

King George III’s Britain. Right. We were trying to get away from that.

Here’s the point, folks. Follow along closely.

Executive Signing Statements Are Fictional and Unconstitutional.

There is zero Constitutional justification for them. If the executive branch enforces anything in a signing statement that contravenes or does not fulfill the obligations of legislation then they are behaving illegally. It doesn’t matter if Bush’s desires are expressed in an interpretive dance or a signing statement. They are equally pointless.

Courts will never find any validity in these cockamamie imbicillities. If they do, head for the exits, since we’ll be well on our way to dictatorship.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Dot.Demarche is proudly powered by WordPress
theme designed by ebjuris web directory
Entries (RSS)and Comments (RSS).