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