Resolved:
- Presidential signing statements threaten to undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers
**Please post your three (3) questions for the Pro, Con, or both sides of the debate, as well as indicating a question or two you would like to see asked in class (through submitting a "reply". Make sure you read through the questions posted before you, as repeated questions will not count! Questions should be submitted by11/10 at noon (12pm).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs of late, such as President Bush, do we see presidents over using their powers when signing statements?
ReplyDeleteHow would things be different if the framers kept the override threshold at 3/4?
Should signing statements be a substitute for vetoing bills that the president considers unconstitutional? If not, what is another option that would keep the president from having too much power?
like question #3
DeleteI agree! Number three is great!
DeleteI agree...#3 is golden
DeleteDefinitely jumping on the bandwagon, but I like #3 also!
Delete1- Is signing statements a liberal-conservative issue? Explain.
ReplyDelete2- The NDAA is a big issue because one section of it allows the military to indefinitely detain, without trial, American citizens suspected of terrorism. Americans are concerned that Obama’s signing statement will not do enough to prevent the NDAA from infringing on citizen’s rights. According to your position on the debate, do you think Obama should or should not sign this?
3- When he was a candidate, Barack Obama used signing statements as a convenient point of contrast with his predecessor. After taking office, President Obama issued a memo outlining the principles he would consider when issuing signing statements. How do you evaluate this?
I like number 3!
Deletei like #3
DeleteObama said he will be more cautious than he predecessor, when in reality he seems to be following in the footsteps of Bush. Do you think future Presidents will be able to decrease their own use of signing statements, or will they continue to use them carelessly like we see with Bush?
ReplyDeleteLund says that the ABA has made it less likely to be taken seriously if a genuine threat is posed to the constitutional order. Do you agree? And if so, how would they approach being taken seriously if a time like this were to arise?
What would be the biggest change if we were using less signing statements, like we were before Reagan?
I like #2
DeleteI like 1. We should discuss signing statement roles with expanding executive authority. Past and future.
DeleteI like 1 as well
Delete1. In your opinion, signing statements that are constitutional a product of polarization in Congress? if so, why?
ReplyDelete2. Do you consider signing statements such rhetorical and political ones to be unconstitutional in regard to the principle of separation of powers?
3. There is no doubt that some presidents would abuse the use of signing statements. However, does it really matter what the president has to say or do when after all Congress has the power to override president veto or refusal to sign a bill?
1. Why do you think we see modern presidents such as Reagan and Bush using statements instead of the veto? Is this a product of the transition as the power of the executive branch has grown?
ReplyDelete2. As we can see, legislation is extremely hard to get passed through Congress. Without statements would the president be able to get any legislation passed with such a polarized government?
3. Instead of banning statements completely, should we allow the president to have a limit of statements that can be signed during a term?
Some say signing statements are used to address areas that the president has no authority. Is it acceptable for a president to issue as signing statement when it is implied or apparent that a law challenges executive authority? Are there any situations where a signing statement would be more acceptable than when it addresses executive power?
ReplyDeleteIt is alluded to that the lack of the "here in granted" clause allows the president to use signing statements in cooperation with the interpretation of his powers. Is it necessary to amend Article 2 of the constitution to limit the use of signing statements or is there a better way?
One of the jobs of the president is to be the chief legislator. Do signing statements, if properly used, help to diversify conversation surrounding legislation and is it unfair to limit the president simply to sign or veto a bill?
1. Is it possible for Congress to pass laws forbidding presidents from unilaterally issuing signing statements if it undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers?
ReplyDelete2. Are there signing statements that are issued by the president which benefit him personally or in his bid for reelection? If yes, is the rule of law undermined?
3. Lund claims the issuing of signing statements does not threaten to undermine the separation of powers because if the president decides to abuse his power, Congress after all, has the power of impeachment. Does the threat of impeachment serve as a deterrent for the president when he considers issuing a signing statement?
1. How has the number of signing statements been affected by the president having a favorable versus unfavorable congress? Does a congress controlled by the other party lead to more controversial signing statements?
ReplyDelete2. Up until almost the end of the convention, congress was going to need 3/4 support to override a veto. This implies that they wanted give more strength to the executive. Given this, would the founders approve of the president asserting power through the use of signing statements?
3. Judicial opinions have been widely accepted as the way that the Supreme Court expresses its interpretations. How do these vary from signing statements?
I like #2!
Delete1. I only became aware of the existence of signing statements in the last year. Were you aware of signing statements before taking this class? (Both sides)
ReplyDelete2. Are signing statements a good way to make laws practical when at times, Congress is not realistic when they pass legislation?
3. Do you think that signing statements are the most powerful check on the legislative branch? Is that check too powerful?
Are signing statements just a means for a president to try and get what he wants, but without all the "political nonsense" that the normal means would require?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible, with a highly polarized congress, to not use signing statements at all?
What are the ramifications of citizens not being aware of how signing statements work, what they are for, etc.?
1. Do you think signing statements are something that have evolved with a more powerful executive?
ReplyDelete2. Do presidents use signing statements instead of vetoes mostly to protect their image to the people or possibly to keep on better terms with Congress?
3. In a way, has Congress been permitting the presidents to use signing statements without trying to do much to stop them?
1. How much effect do signing statements have on the actual law being passed?
ReplyDelete2. What alternatives to signing statements would be differential but effective as far as the law being passed?
3. In issuing a signing statement, are there ever any contradictions between the signing statement and the law being passed?
1. Do you think the general population thinks it's better for the president to get things done faster with presidential signings or is it better for laws to go through the normal means and more likely not getting passed?
ReplyDelete2. If there was more media coverage of signing statements do you think presidents would try to avoid them?
3. Why do you think the the media hasn't picked up on this power of the president more to hold them more accountable.
1. With the government being as polarized as it is, would the president be able to put legislation through without a signing statement?
ReplyDelete2. Do you see presidents in the future abusing the power of signing statements such as Bush and Obama have?
3. In what ways has the abuse of signing statements affected our country today?