Indiana Law Blog wrote about a GAO report on presidential signing statements here. I find this subject really gripes me. The President is bound to execute the law and not write it. If the President does not like the law, he can veto the law. What we get with Bush is a fellow who cannot veto but instead tells Congress how he will (or will not) execute the law.
Anyone want to guess what the Republican response would have been if Clinton had done the same as Bush is doing?
Comments for this post
United States Warfare Realities And The Inevitable Changes On The Horizon
-
In the last 25 years the US has reacted to the 911 tragedy by creating a
behemoth machine that knows only killing, demonstrating* little
understanding o...
1 week ago
