« Ultrasound And The Future Of Confused Wannabe Paternalists | Main | Assassinations »

May 02, 2007

Signing Statements

by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math

Frontpager Kagro X at the Daily Kos notes that President Bush, in theory, could have issued one of his now-infamous signing statements declaring his intent to ignore troop withdrawl provisions in the Iraq supplemental. But, of course, that would give the game away. It's all well and good to issue signing statements saying you intend to ignore the will of Congress when it comes to Medicare Advisory boards or even minutae of the Military Comission Act, but issuing a signing statement for troop withdrawl would trigger headlines of "Bush Accepts Democrats Timetable ... With His Fingers Crossed", leading to catastrophic consequences for Bush's legacy and the Republican party.

May 2, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

It's withdrawal for chrissakes.

Posted by: bloix | May 2, 2007 7:07:05 PM

To be honest, I'm still a bit surprised he didn't. If he and the war weren't so unpopular, I think he would have. The surge is already having catastrophic consequences for his legacy and the Republican party.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 2, 2007 7:28:51 PM

"...but issuing a signing statement for troop withdrawal would trigger headlines of "Bush Accepts Democrats Timetable ... With His Fingers Crossed", leading to catastrophic consequences for Bush's legacy and the Republican party."

As opposed to...? Seeing as how they've covered themselves in glory so far.

Posted by: Stoic | May 2, 2007 8:19:37 PM

The signing statements themselves are not much, in and of themselves, except as a declaration of intent. Only the breaking of a law (of some signifigance) would likely pass into the category of high crimes needed for impeachment.

So, if georgie were to issue a signing statement on a congressional withdrawal timetable and benchmarks bill (saying he was not bound by them) and then ignore those provisions, he would have made clear in advance that he intended to break the law - strengthening the case against him, and making it difficult to say he didn't recall those limitations.

That's why, IMO, he doesn't want to go the signing statements route on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. He would also be potentially in trouble if he signed the limitations bill into law and then ignored the provisions - he would be subject to a impeachment charge for ignoring the limits. But in this case, he can argue long enough to drag out action against him until he is in Paraguay.

Frankly, I don't know how the Congress should respond to his veto. My inclination is to ignore the electoral 08 speculations and do the correct thing - pass the law again. Or make it even tougher. But maybe some other action is a better idea, such as 45 day increments of funding to keep the pressure on all though the summer. But the supplemental is moot after 10/1/07, when a new budget year starts.

Perhaps a good idea is to pass a law now saying that Iraq/Afghanistan/WOT funding for the 08 fiscal year must be included in the standard budget resolution, and no supplementals will be allowed. Then fight on the 08 funding bill with the whole DoD/Intelligence budget hanging on his signature - and make it clear that maybe Iraq will be defunded for any combat operations so Bush and the public know what is ahead.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 2, 2007 9:53:19 PM

I think that if Bush had tried this tactic, he would have been impeached. Simple as that. A Democratic majority wouldn't stand for utter disregard such as that.

Posted by: Glenn Fayard | May 3, 2007 1:17:55 AM

I think that if Bush had tried this tactic, he would have been impeached. Simple as that. A Democratic majority wouldn't stand for utter disregard such as that.

Posted by: Glenn Fayard | May 3, 2007 1:19:48 AM

Also, this new verification system is for the birds.

Posted by: Glenn Fayard | May 3, 2007 1:20:45 AM

I agree with your overall point. However, Bush usually justifies his signing statements by saying how he "interprets" a law congress passes. There is no plausible way for him to interpret a withdrawal requirement as not being a withdrawal requirement.

Not that his other interpretations stand up to scrutiny, just that they have some, if slim, plausible interpretation.

Posted by: Tony | May 3, 2007 2:28:02 AM

Actually this would be an interesting point to bring up every time they trot out the line that the Democrats are holding up funding for the troops. Since Bush has quite a record of issuing signing statements, which he claims are completely legit, it's perfectly reasonable to continuely point out that he refused to do so in this case. This despite his insistence that the funding is urgent.

Either Bush is playing politics with the funding by kicking it back to the Democratic controlled congress, or he knows very well that such a signing statement wouldn't pass legal muster. That would likely call the legitimacy of all his previous signing statements into question as well.

Whichever way you slice it, he's busted.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 3, 2007 2:42:20 AM

The idea of signing statements isn't new; it's only been expanded under Bush. Whether Bush's advisors really think one would apply here isn't clear. It does matter what the signing statements are about, even to Bush's team.

It would be a bad idea for Bush to use a signing statement or otherwise challenge the legislation in this case except as a very last resort, in any case. Why risk using a questionable means, when using a veto is almost certain to work just fine?

Posted by: Sanpete | May 3, 2007 3:06:54 AM

I think the simple explanation is the best one; Bush doesn't think he can get away with finessing his rejection of withdrawal with basically the nation's entire political and policy establishment looking on, so he's vetoing it. He's not in a position vis a vis Iraq to weasel out of his 'no withdrawal' position the way he's always wanted to have it both ways on issues like, for example, the environment.

Posted by: NBarnes | May 3, 2007 7:18:05 AM

Yeah, I had that same thought a month ago, but perhaps he (or his handlers) decided it would be too much. With this guy, though, almost anything goes.

Posted by: Zeno | May 3, 2007 8:16:47 AM

"However, Bush usually justifies his signing statements by saying how he "interprets" a law congress passes. "

Well, yes, but usually he says he "interprets" a particular clause as an unconstitutional restriction on his powers. He's made it perfectly clear in interviews and speeches that the thinks only he has the authority to set troop levels and timing - Congress can defund the war, but that's it.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 3, 2007 8:31:30 AM

There is no plausible way for him to interpret a withdrawal requirement as not being a withdrawal requirement.

That sounds like a challenge to me! Surely somebody in the administration is willing to give it the old college try.

Posted by: Jason | May 3, 2007 10:09:25 AM

I think this just underlines how this "signing statement" business has become something of a saw for Dems. No one really knows if these things have any legal significance, no one's going to test it, and I think in this matter that's not really the point, regardless: signing this bill after all his veto threats would seem weak and like giving in and this man does not give in. He doesn't want a timetable; it's really that plain. And he thinks he can get away with demanding just what he wants and he can't and he's going to get another bill he doesn't like and he's probably going to have to sign it. It doesn't matter now, really, the damage is done.

Posted by: weboy | May 3, 2007 11:33:17 PM

jewess premortify chanterelle chlamydomonadidae megavolt oxalic maunge confusticate
13
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
2
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/11.html
12
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/6.html
9
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/10.html
3
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/17.html
18
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html
13
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/15.html
11
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/6.html
8
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/14.html
2
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/7.html

Posted by: Johnathan Bowen | Sep 5, 2007 3:39:28 AM

jewess premortify chanterelle chlamydomonadidae megavolt oxalic maunge confusticate
crateman
http://www.angelfire.com/pgvlfs/10.html
ismal
http://www.angelfire.com/ybppri/9.html
orc
http://www.freewebs.com/nzwvur/1.html
newcal
http://www.freewebs.com/nzwvur/9.html
angulous
http://www.freewebs.com/eftvge/4.html
quininism
http://www.angelfire.com/pgvlfs/6.html
Domitian
http://www.angelfire.com/ybppri/8.html
infidelic
http://www.angelfire.com/pgvlfs/10.html
tubularly
http://www.freewebs.com/eftvge/5.html
frogstool
http://www.angelfire.com/pgvlfs/5.html

Posted by: Debi Joyce | Oct 2, 2007 2:49:33 PM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Oct 8, 2007 5:35:00 AM

jewess premortify chanterelle chlamydomonadidae megavolt oxalic maunge confusticate
Quark Sandals
http://rdjnyekk.info/133.html

托盘

Posted by: Angela Parsons | Oct 15, 2007 3:50:09 PM

Every time I would like to give you some of Asda Story gold and you will happy to jump up.

Posted by: Asda Story gold | Dec 12, 2008 3:26:10 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.