Members of congress on both sides of the aisle attach unrelated riders to bills all the time. See also: Signing Statements (a uniquely Republican tactic).

Left by John Jarzemsky on September 26th, 2007 at 10:21 am

John, Google ‘Clinton signing statements’. The first hit gives this list:

William J. Clinton March 15th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation Providing Guaranteed Loans for Farmers and Ranchers
William J. Clinton March 30th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation Extending Bankruptcy Code Provisions
William J. Clinton April 2nd, 1999 Statement on Signing the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act
William J. Clinton April 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Wild and Scenic River Act
William J. Clinton May 4th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation To Award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks
William J. Clinton May 21st, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation Authorizing Appropriations for the Peace Corps
William J. Clinton May 21st, 1999 Statement on Signing the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
William J. Clinton July 20th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Y2K Act
William J. Clinton July 22nd, 1999 Statement on Signing the National Missile Defense Act of 1999
William J. Clinton August 17th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999
William J. Clinton August 17th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2000
William J. Clinton August 17th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
William J. Clinton September 24th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Organ Donor Leave Act
William J. Clinton September 29th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, FY 2000
William J. Clinton September 29th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000
William J. Clinton September 29th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Extension of the Airport Improvement Program Act
William J. Clinton September 30th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2000
William J. Clinton October 5th, 1999 Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
William J. Clinton October 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
William J. Clinton October 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation To Extend Bankruptcy Relief to Family Farmers
William J. Clinton October 20th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
William J. Clinton October 21st, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation Establishing Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
William J. Clinton October 21st, 1999 Statement on Signing the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999
William J. Clinton October 22nd, 1999 Statement on Signing the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
William J. Clinton October 26th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999
William J. Clinton November 4th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000
William J. Clinton November 8th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation To Locate and Secure the Return of Zachary Baumel, a United States Citizen, and Other Israeli Soldiers Missing in Action
William J. Clinton November 12th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation To Reform the Financial System
William J. Clinton November 12th, 1999 Statement on Signing the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999
William J. Clinton November 20th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999
William J. Clinton November 29th, 1999 Statement on Signing Consolidated Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2000
William J. Clinton November 30th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act
William J. Clinton November 30th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 1999
William J. Clinton December 3rd, 1999 Statement on Signing the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
William J. Clinton December 6th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999
William J. Clinton December 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation To Protect a Segment of the Chattahoochee River
William J. Clinton December 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing Legislation To Establish Federal Criminal Penalties for Commerce in Depiction of Animal Cruelty
William J. Clinton December 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing the U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Extension Act of 1999
William J. Clinton December 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Act
William J. Clinton December 9th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999
William J. Clinton December 12th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act
William J. Clinton December 17th, 1999 Statement on Signing the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 199

Left by Jim Howard on September 26th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

This abominable piece of legislation has had more reappearances than Elvis. It was tried first as a stand alone piece of legislation, sponsored or promoted by Sen. Orrin Hatch(R). It failed miserably. Since then, back in the 90’s, it has been pushed by Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, Durban the Turban, and others, and has been attached to other pending legislation. In the recent debate over the outrageous Uniform Immigration Bill, the DREAM Act was also attached, and now this one. I believe this legislation will continue to reappear as a parasite to other bills.

John, Walter Dillinger, Assistant Attorney General during the Clintoon administration, had this to say about signing statements.

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

I have yet to see any complaints about his statement, and signing statements have been controversial since the Monroe administration.
Don’t be fooled by the ideologues in the media, that repeat the tired mantra that only Reagan and Bush have used them extensively.

Left by no2liberals on September 26th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

This passage occurs just before that quote appears in Wikipedia:

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[5] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have produced 347 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. [6] As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws

It belies your suggestion as to the ubiquity of signing statements.

John overstated the case but from the statistics above we can estimate that Republicans have issued over 3/4 of the Presidential signing statements in US history.

I’m not opposed to signing statements necessarily- particularly symbolic ones 0r attempts to present the President’s interpretation of the law- but the idea that they carry any weight in a court of law is utterly contrary to the Constitution.

Left by Preston on September 27th, 2007 at 5:22 am

Regarding the Dream Act, I am amazed that you are willing to lay the sins of the father upon their children. These children did not choose to come to this country and may not even speak the language of the country where they hold citizenship.

Once again- effective border enforcement would have never allowed this circumstance to occur. Yet it did- these children are here and they are succeeding. We should acknowledge their success and their unique circumstance and reward their efforts to become productive citizens.

Left by Preston on September 27th, 2007 at 5:28 am

I will recognize and reward adherence to our laws.
I will not recognize and reward successfully evading the law for a short period of time. This Bad DREAM Act rewards illegal behavior, and I’m not making any distinctions about who committed the crime, as this POS bill would reward the individuals that successfully avoided being deported for five years, as long as they stayed in school. They want to come here and go to school and be productive citizens, I’m all for it, just do it legally.

As for signing statements, under the separation of powers, the Framers granted the President Veto Power, with the accompanying constitutional authority to send to Congress what is known as the President’s “signing statement”. In this statement, the President explains to Congress why the bill, part of the bill or parts of the bill that he is required to sign into law are objectionable or unconstitutional. The procedure to override a presidential veto is also inscribed in the Constitution.

Left by no2liberals on September 27th, 2007 at 7:09 am

According to the version floated by Durbin, these “children” could be up to 30 years old. Furthermore, they could get tax subsidized loans and grants and worse than all of that, they could get amnesty for their law breaking parents who are responsible in the first place. So, once again reward the criminals. Punish the taxpayer.

I have an idea. I think that everyone who supports amnesty and tax benefits, etc. for illegals should sign over one dependent tax exemption to the federal government to pay for those they love so friggin much and leave the rest of us ALONE!!!

Left by Dianne on September 27th, 2007 at 11:55 am

Is our congress so dim that they haven’t figured out the the PEOPLE do not want Amnesty in any form??? No wonder we aren’t making any progress!

Left by FedUp on September 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Thank you Preston, I’ll modify my statement to “the overwhelming majority of signing statements have come from Republican leaders”.

Left by John Jarzemsky on September 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

No2L- You’ll have to point out the relevant clause in the Constitution. I simply don’t see how a ’signing statement’ is Constitutional. If it is why all the fuss about passing a Line Item Veto- it would seem to exist already! A president could just say in a signing statement that he’s not going to obey a particular provision of a particular law.

Dianne-
So- a child is brought to the United States as a five year old, graduates high school, graduates college and 25 years later you want to send him to a country he has no memory of? I’m sorry, that’s just utterly cruel.

Sure let’s tighten the borders but that approach to law enforcement seems like a cashier that kicks you out of the express line because you have nine items.

Left by Preston on September 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm

No, I don’t have to point out the relevant clause. You have enough info to do your own research.
Actually, Sen. Specter sponsored a bill in the last Congress that would have made it possible for Congress to sue the President over signing statements. It never made it out of committee, and died at the end of the Congressional term. The new leadership hasn’t taken up the cause either, as they know it would never pass the constitutional challenge in court, and because they know at some point in time they may have a donk in the White House, and they want the option too. You need to pay attention to the stipulation that a usurpation of Presidential power is the key to the legality of a signing statement.
Some, who are more versed in constitutional powers of the President,
believe when the Emergency Iraq Funding bill was signed, the President could have issued signing statements on the “Benchmarks” Congress insisted on. He probably could have. I know Bella Pelosi was seething in advance of his signing, threatening to sue if he did. I wish he had, just to prove the point that the President can’t be sued over signing statements.

Left by no2liberals on September 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Well, unless you find me evidence to the contrary I’ll believe this:

No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.

In contrast to the explicit descriptions of the veto and Congress’s ability to override a veto there is nothing in the Constitution that enables signing statements. This doesn’t mean that they are ‘illegal’ but they surely would never survive scrutiny of the Supreme Court. (Unless they pull a Bush v. Gore again)

Left by Preston on September 28th, 2007 at 6:04 am

Preston: Surprised you didn’t call me racist. That’s the current way of trying to shame people into changing their position on immigration. Doesn’t faze me.

And, as for cruel, I’ll tell ya what’s cruel. My grandkids will not be able to afford to go to college at today’s rates. Their parents cannot afford to send them to college. They are U.S. citizens who barely make a middle class living but do not qualify for grants or student aid. They also don’t qualify for SCHIP or medicaid or any of the other social welfare programs in this country because they make too much, yet not enough. In the meantime, you are asking that funding be given to illegal immigrants…to people who in all probability have not even paid income taxes (and don’t give me this crap about sales taxes), yet have lived off of my tax dollar and the tax dollar of my kids who get jack shit.

Sing your sorry song somewhere else.

Left by Dianne on September 28th, 2007 at 9:17 am

Do you really believe that immigrants- illegal or legal- have anything to do with government’s willingness to provide health insurance or student aid?

Left by Preston on September 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am

To go on at more length:

It is completely commonplace under the law to treat the same action differently depending on the circumstances. Let’s say I shoot someone in the face- you would be appalled and demand that I be tried for attempted murder. However, if it’s a hunting accident it’s likely that I won’t face any penalty at all as long as my actions aren’t deemed too reckless.

Similarly, it does not have to diminish your zeal for secure borders to treat a child differently from an adult. A child has no legal say in where her parents take her and shouldn’t be personally punished by the legal system for the parents’ bad decisions.

As for the practical matter of the burden on society: The numbers I’ve heard bandied about include roughly 65,000 children a year. If this act does not pass don’t expect health care and student aid to be expanded in compensation for the ’savings’. In fact, these people will become tax paying citizens- not just fruit pickers- if they go to the military or college as the Act requires.

Left by Preston on September 28th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Hey if someone grew up here for 5, 10 , 15 years and they have not applied and become a citizen by then….too bad. If we can’t even ask these people to become citizens before we give them the store then we are stupid beyond belief in this country. They want all this stuff, and won’t do a thing for it like become a citizen? No sympathy from me. There is no excuse if someone is brought here at 5 that by the time they graduate high school they could have become a citizen by then. All the cries of it takes toooo long.. so what, get in line then. If you get in line at 5, I am pretty sure by 18 you might be a citizen. Damn, Americans have become so indoctrinated with all this feel good nonsense. What other country is as stupid as we are on this issue?? What other country would be as stupid as America to let people come over here have babies, educate them and never require citizenship.? Who else is that stupid??? I really want to know. Or are we the only suckers left in the world.?

Left by Marc on September 28th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

They also don’t qualify for SCHIP or medicaid or any of the other social welfare programs in this country because they make too much, yet not enough

That’s cruel. Inhuman even. Health care and schooling should be free or income related for every US citizen but I don’t expect a republican administration will change that, ever. So vote smart in 2008.

Left by Jacques on September 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Marc-

Actually, what nation on earth has as much success in assimilating immigrants as the United States? The DREAM Act is in line with that tradition. Guest worker programs, most assuredly, are not and will lead us to the disaster of a European-style permanent immigrant underclass.

Left by Preston on September 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Another issue with the DREAM Act —

If you non-Texans out there wanted to move to Texas and go to college, you’d have to pay out of state tuition until you could legally establish and prove residency.

The DREAM Act would grant illegally immigrated students to pay in-state tuition rates — a privilege not even extended to legal citizens of this country.

Left by Robbie on September 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

The Dream Act has a rather long history and has been written, rewritten several times on a federal basis but the states, well they have taken it upon themselves to enact their own dream acts…my own Kansas being one of them. One state, California, spends $100 million annually to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants .
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2069.cfm

I’m sure Preston finds this chicken feed. Well, that chicken feed comes from my taxes, Preston. But, I can handle it, although grudgingly. What pisses me off is that my kids can’t. They’re already struggling and paying taxes and to add insult to injury are educating illegals at the expense of their own kids.

Doesn’t anybody care about Americans anymore?

Left by Dianne on September 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Henh…believe as you wish.
Presedential Signing Statements-Frequently Asked Questions.
Signing Statements: It’s a President’s Right.

As for this legislation, it is an abomination for a free and sovereign nation, and no sob stories will alter my opinion.

Left by no2liberals on September 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Actually, what nation on earth has as much success in assimilating immigrants as the United States?

The US invented ‘the melting pot ’cause it needed to..

Guest worker programs, most assuredly, are not and will lead us to the disaster of a European-style permanent immigrant underclass.

This happened in the 60’s and early 70’s only and to ‘melt in Europe’ is a bit harder - it actually has a history.

Furthermore some nationalities have less problems to fit in, like Turkish, Surinamese, Chinese and Korean for others like Moroccan it’s much harder.

And how about this:

Amsterdam again city with the most nationalities (177) in the world

The inhabitants of Amsterdam have together 177 different nationalities. This is up 1 from 2006.

Left by Jacques on September 28th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Preston
I hear you. we are a successful country. But we are so because we were all Americans at the end of the day, pulling together as one. When in the past did we give so much to people that were not American citizens? when did that happen? when in the past did we just give out money and educate people who had no papers, could not speak a lick of english, who came in the door illegally? in the past you had to assimilate, take the oath, play by the rules, learn English…so forth. That is how we became great my friend. By having a unifying vision and idea of america as a melting pot. no one culture dominates, unless it is the American culture. the key to that is to buy into America, not to hold on to your past and wave the flag of where you came from, speaking that language. Don’t you see this illegal immigration issue is tearing us apart? it is not bringing anyone together. It is a very passionate issue on both sides. This is not something most people will ever come to an agreement on. This will leave bitter stains for generations to come. Resentment on both sides. This dream act only enlarges the resentment on the american side. To give in state tuition privileges to someone who not an American citizen….don’t you hear how crazy that sounds? That is just insane.! Honestly all I can do is shake my head in amazement we are even having such a discussion. Unbelievable

Left by marc on September 29th, 2007 at 12:45 am

Good comment, Marc.
I have tried to express myself as clearly as possible, that it is an acculturation and assimilation problem, due to illegal entry into our country. We are a sovereign nation, with clearly defined borders, that must be observed.
I welcome any and all immigrants, from any land, as long as they follow the rules, and begin the process of becoming a citizen, not a parasite.
Offering any benefit to those who would violate our laws to obtain them is wrong at every level.

Left by no2liberals on September 29th, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I am amazed that you are willing to lay the sins of the father upon their children. These children did not choose to come to this country and may not even speak the language of the country where they hold citizenship.

The Bible says “the sins of the fathers WILL be visited upon the sons” - because like it or not, it is a fact of Nature: what we do affects future circumstances. Part of being a good parent is to make responsible choices that don’t have negative repercussions for our children.

The children of American criminals suffer hardship when Mom or Dad go to prison for their crimes. We do not consider it the responsibility of American taxpayers to “undo” the consequences of their bad choices.

So why are the rest of us responsible for repairing the damage these illegals do to their children by their decision to break our Immigration Law?

In addition, many, MANY of these illegals deliberately delivered children here as “anchor babies” to insure that the rest of the family could obtain entry later.

I REFUSE to be suckered by pure emotionalism into feeling responsible for the bad consequences of others’ actions.

Left by A Single Voice on September 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I go out of town for a night and there’s more than I can respond to…

Dianne:
One state, California, spends $100 million annually to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants .

This number, if true, is evidence that we should stop illegal immigration. However, it has nothing to do with the DREAM act considering that beneficiaries of the act would be American citizens- not here illegally.

N2L:
Your links support my point that Presidents are free to comment on bills they sign but not to expect that they carry weight in a court of law :

The signing statement does not nullify part of a bill; provisions rejected by the president remain enforceable in court. Courts always respect valid vetoes; they virtually never pay attention to signing statements.

Marc:
I agree with you that immigration is a process in which other people come to this country learn the culture and the language and we all benefit from this exchange. The DREAM act is consistent with this vision. It is true that these children should not have been brought by their parents to this country without legal documentation. But they were. At that point, the only humane course is to find the kids who have been playing by the rules- graduating high school and college or going to the military- and acknowledge this with a promise of citizenship.

ASV:
Actually, the Bible also argues the contrary in Ezekiel 18:20) “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” In any case, our society often attempts to address the poor choices of parents- school; immunization; and car seats are all mandatory.

Left by Preston on September 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Believe as you wish. If they are enforceable in court, why only the threat to sue when the President says he will not enforce a part of the bill, and never an actual suit? Because if it encroaches on the President’s Constitutional authority, they will lose.

Once again, this bill rewards illegal behavior, and offers benefits that aren’t available to our citizens.
It’s wrong, unless you want to give the country away.

Left by no2liberals on September 30th, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Vast US military base near border relies on Mexican labor

FORT BLISS, United States (AFP) — This sprawling US Army base located at the edge of El Paso and skirting the border with Mexico is undergoing a major expansion that heavily relies on Mexicans for its construction.

Amid growing controversy in the United States over immigration — legal and illegal — the military is using foreign labor to build the base.

Left by Jacques on October 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Preston, you did not address my main sticking point. If some kid was brought here at the age of five and either the kid nor the parents cared enough to go thru the process of making themselves a U.S. citizen, then why should we in this country give them anything? Help me understand why we should give something to someone who does not even have the courtesy or willingness to pledge a simple oath, go thru the process, get in line with all the rest, and become a citizen???What on earth is the reason we should do this??? I as a U.S. citizen don’t even get the same darn break.!! And I am not buying the argument: they play by the rules and are good kids….that has nothing to do with it.! It comes down to this: if illegal immigrants don’t care enough to become a citizen, then they should get nothing..period end of story. no exceptions.! No education, health care, drivers license, voting rights, employment, ability to buy a house, nothing.. I can’t be any more clear, illigal immigrants should get nothing from this society. The reason they are here my friend is because we give them EVERYTHING and ask nothing in return. We are the dumb ones here. This has nothing to do with the good hearted traditions of America. This has to do with the permanent destruction of our culture in favor of a 3rd world biased culture..We need to wake up in this country in the worst possible way.

Left by Marc on October 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pm