Kvatch Konsiders - Challenging the "Statement at Signing"

OK, I know that I've blogged on this topic before, but this is getting ridiculous...750 signing statements! 750! With David Addington, an unelected partisan hack, adding more each day. Bush doesn't need the veto. He's got the ability to "addendize" laws away!

These things are unconstitutional and exercising them may even be illegal. So why the f*ck with 750 to choose from we can't get just one into the Supreme Court. I want these things to be declared unconstitutional once and for all. In other words, where's my fracking test case?!


I'm sure it'll be coming up sooner or later. Maybe a torture victim will find the right angry attorney and it'll all blow the f*k up. I'm waiting right along with you.
Hhana:Creating one's own laws in the face of a legislative body is indicative of a dictatorship.
Dhana:Pursuing legal action against a dictator is a sure way to be labeled a subversive and sent to a dark hole where no one can hear you scream!
It's ridiculous. It's the equivalent of "crossing your fingers" when you sign a bill - that way it doesn't count - as long as your fingers are crossed when you sign - that's definitely key. I feel like I'm in 4th grade again!
Gratis, I'm all over that. Just one test case is all I'm asking.

H&D, welcome. Well at least I've already got that whole subversive thing worked out.

Elsa, I did a whole thing on Presidential Crossing of the Fingers.
It must have subconsciously stuck in my mind. Or maybe great minds think alike. Yeah...I definitely like the latter explanation! :-)
The signing statement is pure genius in the incarnation used by the W, Rove and Co...it proves unequivocally that they think they are above the law and they place themselves there.
One problem for trying to get this issue thru the courts is that there aren't any litigants with good enough standing to say they have been adversely affected by the use of the signing statements. Besides, if it did ever get to the courts, don't think the Bushies would hesitate to just declare "state secrets" and have the is thrown out (which is another authority being overly used to hide wrongdoing on the part of the "Excusive Branch")
BTW, thanks for the inspiration.
Xsociate, I agree with the first part of what you said, but on the second part...I'm sure that there are a bunch of statements that have nothing to do with national security. And, I'm not even sure it a matters. Seems to be a pretty stark Constitutional question: Either the things are legal or they're not. The content is irrelevant.

BTW, you're welcome.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link