Contrary to popular opinion signing statements are not something  
developed by the present incumbent of the oval office. A Congressional  
Research Service report issued on September 17, 2007 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf 
) stated the following:

While the history of
presidential issuance of signing statements dates to the early 19th  
century, the practice
has become the source of significant controversy in the modern era as  
Presidents
have increasingly employed the statements to assert constitutional and  
legal
objections to congressional enactments. President Reagan initiated  
this practice in
earnest, transforming the signing statement into a mechanism for the  
assertion of
presidential authority and intent. President Reagan issued 250 signing  
statements, 86
of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the  
statutory
provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this  
practice,
issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections.  
President
Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely  
consonant with that
of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made  
aggressive use
of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%)  
raised
constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has  
continued this
practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain  
some type of
challenge or objection. The significant rise in the proportion of  
constitutional
objections made by President Bush is compounded by the fact that these  
statements
are typified by multiple objections, resulting in more than 1,000  
challenges to distinct
provisions of law.

On Jun 30, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote:

> I love having someone else characterize me and say whose side I am  
> on. I would ask Kevin, since he seems so tied to text and  
> originalism, to point to the part of the US Constitution that says a  
> state may unilaterally withdraw after ratification.  If he can find  
> that part then we are on the same page; if not, then it seems to me  
> that he is the one who wants to avoid the text to come up with some  
> extraneous, non-constitutional argument of some politicians  
> explaining that what they are doing is not what they really are  
> doing. It is very much like President Bush's latest innovation in  
> Constitutional law, the "signing statement."
>
> But, I will with draw from this discussion now and get back to work.
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>     and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York   12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [log in to unmask]

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html