I think the root of the problem is ultimately in the Constitution itself. In the perhaps questionable wisdom of separation of powers, the die was cast for an imperial executive, all the more likely due to the fact that many of the original framers desired a powerful executive. It took Abraham Lincoln, and later the 14th Amendment to bring their dreams to fruition.

Ultimately, the only way to slay the beast of an imperial presidency would be a substantial constitutional rewrite. Elimination of Presidential Veto, possible election by the House of Representatives and limitation to one term. Or you could go in entirely different reform directions. There are numbers of proposals for defanging the executive.

Idle threats of impeachment won't do the trick, however. Only a wholesale revamping of the executive power.

Have signing statements ever been ruled on by SCOTUS? If not, couldn't a citizen with "standing" (that is, one who would benefit by the legislation that the President is unConstitutionally preventing) bring a case to SCOTUS and settle this matter? If so, perhaps the LP should join with like-minded groups or persons and bring the President to court rather than waiting for the wussies in Congress to do it.

Creech:

There are no Supreme Court decisions on the Constitutionality of signing statements per se.

However.

In a recent dissent by Justice Scalia to a Supreme Court decision overturning military tribunals in Guantano Bay, Scalia argued that the signing statement to the law in question was RELEVANT, to judicial interpretation of the law. This dissent was concurred in by Justices Thomas and Alito. So three Justices are on record in favor of signing statements. There are no views either for or against from the other justices.

I will go on the record myself as saying that there is absolutely NO authority for signing statements. If the President wishes to make a statement, than he may make that as "Objections" in conjunction with returning an unsigned bill to Congress for reconsideration. Otherwise, he needs to shut the hell up and sign it, and then execute it as Congress intended.

Since leaving the Congress, Bob Barr has really been a phenomenal spokesman on so many important issues. In a way, it's like losing re-election freed him up to be who he really is.

I had the pleasure of having dinner with him a couple of weeks ago, and I was struck by how much the post-elected office Barr differed from the Barr I remembered from the Clinton impeachment fiasco.

I've heard a lot about the "new" Bob Barr. I wonder if he is still a rabid drug war zealot. He was one of the worst in office.

To the extent that Mr. Barr may still be an ardent drug warrior, he is no friend of liberty, whatever he says. And to that extent, I can't trust him.

The President can say anything he wants when he signs a bill. It does not have the force of law. If he tries to cross his fingers with a "signing statement," so as to legitimize his later practice of not faithfully executing the law he has signed, then THAT's an unconstitutional, impeachable offense. Where are the impeachment proceedings?

We don't need a new system. We just need the current guardians of our existing system to take seriously their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. If they don't, the American people need to throw them out and install officials who will. My strategy for this year and TFN: vote against all incumbents and FOR the third party or independent candidate who is not only qualified for the job, but best reflects my philosophy of governance. If the people don't show who's "boss," the pols in DC and the state capitals will never get it, they'll just keep giving us more of the same-old, same-old. Judging from how bad things have become, the people must make their move soon.

Remember, the President is not elected by the people. He is elected by electoral college electors, who are appointed by the State legislatures. The only reason the people have an official say in this at all is because most state legislatures have bound themselves to respect a vote of the people in their state. These arrangements can and should be undone at the state level, so that we can get back to a mechanism that works, more or less, as its architects envisioned. While we're at it, the 17th Amendment kicked our carefully designed governmental engine out of balance, and badly needs to be repealed. The Senate was conceived as the house that represented the States, with its members being appointed by the State governments, while the House of Representatives was to be "the people's house," with its members being directly elected by the people. Today, members of both houses are directly elected. Senators now have far less motivation to protect their States against the Federal government, and more motivation to help the Federal government accumulate treasure and power, so they can bring more of it back home as pork, to bribe constituents into re-electing them. That's a bad thing, in my opinion. We should admit the 17th Amendment was a failure and get rid of it.

Presidential electors are not appointed by state legislators. The petition for Harry Browne, for
instance, listed the electors for him chosen by the state LP.

Creech wrongly asserts, "Presidential electors are not appointed by state legislators. The petition for Harry Browne, for instance, listed the electors for him chosen by the state LP."

I did not say that "legislators" appointed electors (as in, your local legislator has the power to appoint you as an elector). I said that "legislatures" appoint electors -- they and they alone have the constitutional authority to appoint Presidential electors.

Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

Different State legislatures may choose different Manners of appointment -- perhaps a particular State may choose to rubberstamp the nominations of its "official" political parties; or require its citizens to vote in a binding election for electors pledged to a candidate, but not the candidate him- or herself -- but the Legislatures have the constitutional authority to change the "Manner" of appointment in any way they choose. They could, for example, directly appoint Electors in legislative session -- as Florida was preparing to do in 2000, in order to break the legal logjam.

The point is that -- directly or indirectly -- the Legislatures are responsible for choosing the Presidential electors. That is to say, the Constitition leaves presidential selection to a vote of the States, via their legislatively appointed proxies, not to a vote of the people. The "popular vote" is a fiction made real by the cooperation of 50 separate State legislatures, who have all agreed to respect the vote of the people in their respective states, during the elector selection process. The 50 State legislatures can choose their electors 50 different ways, and at least two now do depart from the "popular-vote-winner-take-all" trend. Proposed legislation in my own state of CA would toss all of our electoral votes to the candidate that commanded the majority of the national public vote. The Legislature in another state could choose to give its votes to the candidate that won Florida! Or decide electors by lottery!Oor by whoever posted the most convincing essay on HitAndRun! Or by who bid the most for the appointment!