ndmckinney|net

As you may remember, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued a report last week condemning President Bush’s use of signing statements to effectively ignore the law. The ABA report states that President Bush has used signing statements to ignore or “disobey” more than 750 laws since coming into office, and that the use of such signing statements exceeds the president’s constitutional authority and presents a crisis, since the Congress effectively would have no power if the president could simply ignore any legislation.

Also last week, largely in response to the ABA report, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced S. 3731, titled “The Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006″, would give the Congress the power to challenge such statements in federal court [Sec. 5]. The bill also would not allow the courts to use the signing statements when interpreting the statute [Sec. 4]. As I read the bill, it is not as much an attack on the courts, stating that the use of signing statements as authority is “inappropriate, because it in effect gives these statements the force of law.” [Sec. 2, Paragraph 5].

The irony, of course, is that the president will most likely try and ignore this law just as he has ignored the other 750 laws to date. I’m not sure that this bill is even necessary, assuming that it even passes. If the Congress delegates authority to the president, or if the executive branch has the constitutional power to act, it can simply avoid the issue by not enforcing the law. I do not see how the Congress can force the executive to act.

I do not like using the phrase “Constitutional crisis”; the phrase is overused and only confuses the issue. I do think, however, that this may be an instance where there is a gap in the constitution. Remember, the Congress is asking the courts to intervene. Even if there is a statute in place, I do not think the courts will have the power to act. Most telling is a line from the ABA report’s recommendations: “It is to be hoped that the President would obey any constitutional declaration of the Supreme Court.” [Report, p. 25]

I’m happy to report that I’ve completed another semester of law school, sort of. It would be more accurate to say that I’ve completed a half semester of law school, since I only took 8 credit hours. I’ve now completed the following courses (recent courses in green):
First Level Curriculum

• Criminal Law
• Torts
• Civil Procedure I & II
• Contracts I & II
• Property
• Constitutional Law
• Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing (LARW) I & II

Upper Level Curriculum

• Evidence
• Professional Responsibility
• LARW III

I have the next three weeks off from law school. During that time, I’m going to work on (1) Moot Court and (2) my Advanced Legal Research thesis. Except for today. I’m not doing anything.

This fall, I am scheduled to take:

• Advanced Legal Research
• International Law
• International Business Transactions
• Commercial Law
• Cyberspace Law Seminar

The House of Representatives votes 359-68 to approve US-India nuclear trade deal, despite the existence of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The president calls this a major victory. I call it destabilizing and perhaps illegal.

According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that parts of the state’s eminent domain law are unconstitutional. The state cannot exert its taking power to transfer property to private parties.

The new HondaJet reflects the company’s aspiration to revolutionize the corporate jet market.