Neither Barack nor Hillary will renounce interpretive signing statements

this is PRECISELY why i have been making daily full burnt offerings to whatever gods there may be that the bush cabal is forced from office prior to 20 january 2009, and the unlawful and unconstitutional mechanisms of unfettered power are both rolled back and forcefully repudiated...

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) will not commit to ending President George W. Bush's practice of signing statements -- a tactic whereby the president adds his interpretation to laws passed by Congress, possibly allowing his office to circumvent the law -- according to a little-noticed article Monday.

Sen. John McCain R-AZ), however, asserts he would. Asked by a Washington Post reporter, he said he'd never consider it.

"Never, never, never, never," McCain said. "If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it."

Signing statements are a long-time presidential practice, dating to the fifth US president, James Monroe. No constitutional provision or federal law prohibits their usage. They didn't become popular, however, until President Ronald Reagan -- before Reagan, just 75 such statements had been issued.

this is no reason to vote for mccain, but it certainly throws another kind of light on barack and hillary...

p.s. let me be clear... i see nothing wrong with a president adding a statement to a bill upon signing... those messages can be used to communicate many things, but to use them as a means to declare that the president of the united states reserves the power to defy the intent of the law he is signing cannot be one of them...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet