Bush's poll numbers drop into the 20s

[Kuciwalker]

When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president's influence over future court rulings.

I actually don't see the problem here...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well if you are looking at interpretation, Congress' is the one that should be ideally looked at. The legislative branch is in charge of making law. True, the President has influence on the bills, but he isn't allowed to introduce them or add amendments, just sign 'em or veto 'em. Originally the President's power was much more limited, so a veto wasn't seen as it today (the President as final decider), but rather to stop any extremely wacked out laws.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
MERICA! WE'VE TURNED A CORNER!!!!!!!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well if you are looking at interpretation, Congress' is the one that should be ideally looked at. The legislative branch is in charge of making law. True, the President has influence on the bills, but he isn't allowed to introduce them or add amendments, just sign 'em or veto 'em. Originally the President's power was much more limited, so a veto wasn't seen as it today (the President as final decider), but rather to stop any extremely wacked out laws.

There's still nothing wrong with the President attaching his interpretation of the bill. Interpretation of the Constitution isn't exclusive to the Supreme Court.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ow. Feel better?

-Arrian

Ask him that after the crash here in Canada if the American economy tanks.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's still nothing wrong with the President attaching his interpretation of the bill. Interpretation of the Constitution isn't exclusive to the Supreme Court.

Well, binding interpretation of the Constitution is (or rather to the federal courts) .

The problem is when the President interprets a bill which says the President can't do X as if the President wants he can ignore the bill. Its to the point where the President, as head of the enforcement arm of the government, is refusing to do his job... which should lead to impeachment if he tries to go ahead with his 'interpretations' of bills (which aren't really interpretations at all).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, binding interpretation of the Constitution is (or rather to the federal courts) .

And this makes no claim to be binding.

The problem is when the President interprets a bill which says the President can't do X as if the President wants he can ignore the bill. Its to the point where the President, as head of the enforcement arm of the government, is refusing to do his job... which should lead to impeachment if he tries to go ahead with his 'interpretations' of bills (which aren't really interpretations at all).

Or Congress should sue the President to enforce the bill. At which point it goes through the courts, who, as you mentioned, have the power to make binding interpretations. And presidents tend to obey the Supreme Court even when it would lead to their downfall - see Nixon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress can't sue the Pres to enforce a bill. They can only impeach.

[Kuciwalker]

They can't?

/me goes to read about this...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Ask him that after the crash here in Canada if the American economy tanks.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The US economy isn't going to tank because of what Dubya does...

[Kuciwalker]

They can sue the President in some circumstances, though. At least, I don't see how else U.S. v. Nixon would exist...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They can't?

* Kuciwalker goes to read about this...

Nope (well, let me rephrase: they can sue, but they won't win). 1) It's a political question, 2) Congress doesn't have standing (what harm is done to them?).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, if Bush nuked New York, his numbers would go up as he would be a hero to most Americans getting rid of so many leftists in one stroke.

You might had fit very well in with the other terrorists who attacked New York on 9/11.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They can sue the President in some circumstances, though. At least, I don't see how else U.S. v. Nixon would exist...

"U.S." wasn't Congress. It was brought by the Special Prosecutor, who was appointed by the Department of Justice.

[Kuciwalker]

It's not a political question, it's a Constitutional question. The President is not enforcing the law passed by Congress.

As to standing, wouldn't the fact that they're Congress and they passed the law be enough?

xpost*2