There has already been a couple of diaries on the American Bar Association press conference this morning, but they have been cursory at best and I hope to raise a different slant.
If not, don't be shy, let me know and I will delete.
Several sources reported over the weekend that the
ABA intended to announce at a press conference held this morning that BushCo's signing statements were unconstitutional. I assumed that I had read all there was to this somewhat obvious decision, but I clicked on C-Span this morning anyway and once again I was proven wrong.
There was IMO an interesting slant on their announcement and after a little research on my part a disturbing revelation.
While I understand that this may be a fairly complex legal question, and I look forward to any illumination or insight you Kossack lawyerly types can provide, to a layperson such as myself it seemed fairly apparent that BushCo was in direct violation of the Constitution. If not in content or spirit then simply by the absurd number of signing statements employed as nothing more then a strategy to circumvent the Veto process and Congressional oversight.
So it was no surprise to me when the ABA announced this morning that they also believed the Presidential signing statements to be unconstitutional. What did surprise me was the ABA announcement that BushCo was also not living up to the Presidential oath of office.
Not speaking legaleeze I will attempt to relate what I understood the ABA task force members to maintain - The only possible legal rational that BushCo could use to argue their unprecedented use of Presidential signing statements was that they believed the Bill, or a portion of the Bill, to be unconstitutional. If BushCo did in fact believe a Bill, or portion of that Bill, to be unconstitutional and then signed it into Law, even with a Presidential signing statement attached to it, that was a direct violation of the Presidential oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
When BushCo was appointed President by one of the most convoluted and impracticle decisions in the history of the SCOTUS he still had to stand in front of the nation and swear:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."--Presidential oath of office, Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution
As a layperson I generally rely upon common sense as my 'smell test' when it comes to Constitutional issues. While I may not find arguing the legal semantics as to the definition of - 'what is? Is.' - as a productive pursuit I do understand that a great many people make a nice living at such 'legal wrangling'. When it comes to our Presidential oath of office however there seems to be little 'wiggle room'.
This led me to then ask - if Bush 43 is in violation of his Presidential oath of office then weren't all other Presidents that used signing statements in violation of their oath as well? In doing a little research on Presidential signing statements I came across an article maintaining that signing statements were never really used as a strategic tactic until Reagan and that the legal mind behind the Presidential signing statement is none other then our very own newest Supreme Court appointment Justice Samuel Alito.
I have not been able to find the answer as to whether all Presidential signing statements violate the presidential oath of office yet, but it does seem awfully convenient to me that the chief architect of present BushCo policies just happened to make it on to the SCOTUS just in the nick of time. What are the chances that Alito recuses himself, or is forced to recuse himself, if and when this case reaches the SCOTUS?