I think it is clear that the ABA gambit failed. It may be fair to say that an entity has not been so isloated from erstwhile allies since South Carolina pushed for Nullification in the 1830s. In the aftermath of this PR failure, the ABA seems incredibly radical and extreme.
As for content, here is the most noteworthy paragraph from the WASHINGTON POST story featured on the Powerline post:
"Presidents have long used signing statements to identify particular provisions of law as potentially unconstitutional. They have just as long declined to enforce provisions of law they regarded as unconstitutional. Particularly since the Carter and Reagan administrations, the use of signing statements has been on the upswing, and that's generally a good thing. These statements give the public and Congress fair warning about which laws the president intends to ignore or limit through interpretation. They thereby permit criticism and more vibrant debate. And they have no legal consequences over and above the president's powers to instruct the executive branch as to how to interpret a law -- which he could do privately in any case."
Thanks to Okie Gardener (and Tocqueville) for continuing to point out relevant discussion of this issue.
10/08 10:37:55
Add Comment
This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
A Waco Farmer wrote:
As for content, here is the most noteworthy paragraph from the WASHINGTON POST story featured on the Powerline post:
"Presidents have long used signing statements to identify particular provisions of law as potentially unconstitutional. They have just as long declined to enforce provisions of law they regarded as unconstitutional. Particularly since the Carter and Reagan administrations, the use of signing statements has been on the upswing, and that's generally a good thing. These statements give the public and Congress fair warning about which laws the president intends to ignore or limit through interpretation. They thereby permit criticism and more vibrant debate. And they have no legal consequences over and above the president's powers to instruct the executive branch as to how to interpret a law -- which he could do privately in any case."
Thanks to Okie Gardener (and Tocqueville) for continuing to point out relevant discussion of this issue.