Myron Bunkerling: Frustrated by the Bush’s use of presidential signing statements to challenge or ignore provisions of legislation, Senator Arlen Specter has reintroduced legislation to rein in the President’s ability to use the tactic. Do signing statements make for good law?
Brick Hawke: The point is moot. If the bill passes, the President has already prepared a signing statement which says that a) the Executive Branch has the authority to make infinite signing statements, b) furthermore, the Executive Branch considers all utterances from Arlen Spectre as the nonsensical whining of a ninny headed mish-mosh-moderate with funny jowls no eyebrows, and c) the President as Commander in Chief can make Arlen Spectre his personal slave forever in perpetuity throughout the universe no touchbacks.
Attacus Dove: Signing statements do not make good law. Signing statements don’t make any kind of law. Congress makes law. Come on, Myron, read your Constitution before asking such silly questions. Signing statements are merely meant to be a window into the Presidential state of mind while signing a bill. So one has to wonder why so many of Bush’s signing statements are actually signed by others, including Cheney, Rove, and someone referring to himself as fratboycheer68@rnc.com.
Dual Blog | No Comments »