Letters to the Editor 06-30-2006
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
- Signing Statements - Rice & Israel - Found Dog - Editor, Times-Union:
Signing Statements
Editor, Times-Union:An article and an editorial about Presidential Signing Statements have appeared recently in the Times-Union. Unfortunately, I doubt that too many people have heard of these statements before and I doubt that too many are concerned about them. Hopefully, this will change as congressional hearings are held.
I heard an interview with some congressman who said he did not know what these statements were which indicates the rather obscure nature of the statements.
Signing statements are statements added by the President when he signs congressional bills. Most presidents have used these. Up until Reagan, 75 such statements had been written. From Reagan through Clinton, 247 more were attached, and during the current Bush administration, more than 750 were added.
Some of these statements have been simply rhetorical making statements such as "good law." Apparently, most of the first 75 were like this. Then the statements started to question the constitutionality of laws and were frequently, especially with Clinton, accompanied by lengthy constitutional discussions. (See www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm) This is not all bad since Congress sometimes writes ambiguously worded laws. Apparently, when laws come up for judicial review, signing statements have been considered since they have sometimes stated how the President interpreted what Congress had done.
But with the current President, things have changed. From what I have seen, the statements are relatively short and rely on the interpretation of the term "unitary executive."
The one that caught the attention of some was with the McCain Detainee Amendment. In essence, the statement says the Executive Branch can use "unitary executive" authority to give the commander-in-chief the power to interpret and apply the law as he sees fit. This has been interpreted by some (see Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe, Jan 4, 2006) to mean the President can ignore the ban.
Except for a few articles, the press has gingerly danced around this issue. Tony Blankley (conservative columnist of the Washington Times) dismissed the issue on the Diane Rehm show by saying that, "Other presidents have used these statements."
This is an issue that needs wide discussion. I know that Bush, Cheney and Rove have indicated the power of the President has been diminished since the Nixon era. To try and get this power back with signing statements is wrong. Not only does this say congress is irrelevant, it also does so in a way that bypasses the Judicial branch since the concept of "unitary executive" basically gives the President the right to make judicial decisions and do so with what amounts to a line item veto.
This is not a partisan issue since the President appears to have used this to avoid vetoes on bills passed by his own party. Using the statements as Bush has is an affront to the Constitution. The press, congress and the general public should be very concerned about this. I hope that more is written about these and I hope the Congressional hearings bring results.
James Streator, via e-mail
Claypool
Rice & Israel
Editor, Times-Union:Just some tidbits about the present events happening in the Gaza Strip.
Our President needs to put some duct tape over the mouth of Condoleezza Rice. In case you didn't know, the Hamas-lead Palestinian Government is a terrorist organization. Our President of the United States, George Walker Bush, is very firm about "no" to negotiations with terrorists. Do you see the USA setting at a table with the terrorists in Iraq or the terror organization leaders responsible for 9/11?
Now, how this works, I don't know, but our own Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who works and speaks for our President, has told both Israel and the Palestinians to give diplomacy (negotiations) a chance. Where does Rice come off telling Israel to use diplomacy with a terrorist organization? It does not work with murderers! Let the Islamic world experience again what they choose to forget, history. Israel soundly defeated in just a few days, in an all-out war, all the major Islamic countries of their region. I say we should learn from Israel, not try to deter them. Our own religious book, the Holy Bible, tells us gentiles (non-Jews) that if we forget Gods laws, that we are to look to the keepers of his laws. That keeper, assigned by God, is Israel. Though they are brothers, they are always at war with Muslims, usually a defensive, or you-hit-me-I'll-hit-you ongoing war, because the Muslims are after what Israel has been given by God, his blessing. The saddest part of it all is that they are all from the same blood line, Abraham, and all could have God's blessing if they would live together like the brothers they are. They all know this to be true, yet the war goes on.
Jonathan R. Mauk, via e-mail
Warsaw
Found Dog
Editor, Times-Union:I found a dog in Kelly Park in Warsaw. If anyone has any information on who it could belong to, please call 265-5988 or 594-1660.
Renee and Bob Fugate, via e-mail
Pierceton
Editor, Times-Union:
So what is a liberal?I am hearing the term being disparaged by politicians and columnists on the TV, on the radio and in the newspapers. Even our own Times-Union is running an ongoing cartoon, Mallard Fillmore, which is castigating liberals.
So what is this awful thing called a liberal?
I pulled out my trusty old Webster Dictionaries and looked it up. First, in my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1967, relevant definitions include: "one who is open-minded in the observance of orthodox or traditional forms" or "an advocate of liberalism esp. in individual rights." It defines liberalism as "a goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
Hmmm! Not too bad! Maybe I should check another version! My original Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1961, includes the following: "Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; often, specifically, having tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished from monarchical or aristocratic forms."
Well, don't know what to think. Kind of sounds like the principles that this country was founded on! Maybe I ought to check one more time! I have a Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1984. (I don't know why I have collected so many of these things). It basically repeats the earlier definition of a liberal: "one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways" or "an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights." Liberalism is defined as "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
Really, this doesn't sound too bad to me. In fact, I think that I could identify myself as a liberal and be proud of it. Certainly, these attributes don't deserve the blind disparagement and mischaracterization that the term liberal is getting in the media including our own Times-Union.
In fact, I believe that in this era of troubled politics and with so many questions floating around regarding our nation's role in the world, its treatment of people, both adversaries and its own citizens, and regarding economic issues, that hearing and considering alternative viewpoints and ideas should be encouraged, not discouraged. How else can we collectively determine if we are going down the wrong path and correct.
Howard Woodward Jr., via e-mail
Warsaw
[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
- Signing Statements - Rice & Israel - Found Dog - Editor, Times-Union:
Signing Statements
Editor, Times-Union:An article and an editorial about Presidential Signing Statements have appeared recently in the Times-Union. Unfortunately, I doubt that too many people have heard of these statements before and I doubt that too many are concerned about them. Hopefully, this will change as congressional hearings are held.
I heard an interview with some congressman who said he did not know what these statements were which indicates the rather obscure nature of the statements.
Signing statements are statements added by the President when he signs congressional bills. Most presidents have used these. Up until Reagan, 75 such statements had been written. From Reagan through Clinton, 247 more were attached, and during the current Bush administration, more than 750 were added.
Some of these statements have been simply rhetorical making statements such as "good law." Apparently, most of the first 75 were like this. Then the statements started to question the constitutionality of laws and were frequently, especially with Clinton, accompanied by lengthy constitutional discussions. (See www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm) This is not all bad since Congress sometimes writes ambiguously worded laws. Apparently, when laws come up for judicial review, signing statements have been considered since they have sometimes stated how the President interpreted what Congress had done.
But with the current President, things have changed. From what I have seen, the statements are relatively short and rely on the interpretation of the term "unitary executive."
The one that caught the attention of some was with the McCain Detainee Amendment. In essence, the statement says the Executive Branch can use "unitary executive" authority to give the commander-in-chief the power to interpret and apply the law as he sees fit. This has been interpreted by some (see Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe, Jan 4, 2006) to mean the President can ignore the ban.
Except for a few articles, the press has gingerly danced around this issue. Tony Blankley (conservative columnist of the Washington Times) dismissed the issue on the Diane Rehm show by saying that, "Other presidents have used these statements."
This is an issue that needs wide discussion. I know that Bush, Cheney and Rove have indicated the power of the President has been diminished since the Nixon era. To try and get this power back with signing statements is wrong. Not only does this say congress is irrelevant, it also does so in a way that bypasses the Judicial branch since the concept of "unitary executive" basically gives the President the right to make judicial decisions and do so with what amounts to a line item veto.
This is not a partisan issue since the President appears to have used this to avoid vetoes on bills passed by his own party. Using the statements as Bush has is an affront to the Constitution. The press, congress and the general public should be very concerned about this. I hope that more is written about these and I hope the Congressional hearings bring results.
James Streator, via e-mail
Claypool
Rice & Israel
Editor, Times-Union:Just some tidbits about the present events happening in the Gaza Strip.
Our President needs to put some duct tape over the mouth of Condoleezza Rice. In case you didn't know, the Hamas-lead Palestinian Government is a terrorist organization. Our President of the United States, George Walker Bush, is very firm about "no" to negotiations with terrorists. Do you see the USA setting at a table with the terrorists in Iraq or the terror organization leaders responsible for 9/11?
Now, how this works, I don't know, but our own Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who works and speaks for our President, has told both Israel and the Palestinians to give diplomacy (negotiations) a chance. Where does Rice come off telling Israel to use diplomacy with a terrorist organization? It does not work with murderers! Let the Islamic world experience again what they choose to forget, history. Israel soundly defeated in just a few days, in an all-out war, all the major Islamic countries of their region. I say we should learn from Israel, not try to deter them. Our own religious book, the Holy Bible, tells us gentiles (non-Jews) that if we forget Gods laws, that we are to look to the keepers of his laws. That keeper, assigned by God, is Israel. Though they are brothers, they are always at war with Muslims, usually a defensive, or you-hit-me-I'll-hit-you ongoing war, because the Muslims are after what Israel has been given by God, his blessing. The saddest part of it all is that they are all from the same blood line, Abraham, and all could have God's blessing if they would live together like the brothers they are. They all know this to be true, yet the war goes on.
Jonathan R. Mauk, via e-mail
Warsaw
Found Dog
Editor, Times-Union:I found a dog in Kelly Park in Warsaw. If anyone has any information on who it could belong to, please call 265-5988 or 594-1660.
Renee and Bob Fugate, via e-mail
Pierceton
Editor, Times-Union:
So what is a liberal?I am hearing the term being disparaged by politicians and columnists on the TV, on the radio and in the newspapers. Even our own Times-Union is running an ongoing cartoon, Mallard Fillmore, which is castigating liberals.
So what is this awful thing called a liberal?
I pulled out my trusty old Webster Dictionaries and looked it up. First, in my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1967, relevant definitions include: "one who is open-minded in the observance of orthodox or traditional forms" or "an advocate of liberalism esp. in individual rights." It defines liberalism as "a goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
Hmmm! Not too bad! Maybe I should check another version! My original Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1961, includes the following: "Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; often, specifically, having tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished from monarchical or aristocratic forms."
Well, don't know what to think. Kind of sounds like the principles that this country was founded on! Maybe I ought to check one more time! I have a Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1984. (I don't know why I have collected so many of these things). It basically repeats the earlier definition of a liberal: "one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways" or "an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights." Liberalism is defined as "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
Really, this doesn't sound too bad to me. In fact, I think that I could identify myself as a liberal and be proud of it. Certainly, these attributes don't deserve the blind disparagement and mischaracterization that the term liberal is getting in the media including our own Times-Union.
In fact, I believe that in this era of troubled politics and with so many questions floating around regarding our nation's role in the world, its treatment of people, both adversaries and its own citizens, and regarding economic issues, that hearing and considering alternative viewpoints and ideas should be encouraged, not discouraged. How else can we collectively determine if we are going down the wrong path and correct.
Howard Woodward Jr., via e-mail
Warsaw
[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092