This isn't a new story, but maybe you guys have heard that Bush has ruffled feathers with his presidential signing statements; I think he's surpassed 125 since 2001 (125 bills, over 750 specific statutes therein). Clinton wrote more (in most cases innocuous comments like, "This is a good bill"), but Bush's have been more controversial and defiant. Basically a signing statement can be a way for the president or his/her designees to circumvent, or skirt the consequences of, bills from Congress that he/she just signed into law. It's like, "I don't have the balls to veto this, so I just won't respect it." As you would expect, "national security" was a common Bush excuse.
However this problem extends beyond one ornery Texan. Government agencies (often led by Bush cronies) are refusing to heed laws flagged by Bush signing statement objections. He is undermining the authority of Congress, and giving certain people the "option" of ignoring laws that he himself signed! The GAO was not pleased, and I thought conservatives were all about respecting the rule of law! Well, of course the president has the right/obligation to fight any challenges to the executive authorities outlined by America's founders and Constitutional precedent, but I don't think he/she should be augmenting or inventing new powers on the fly.
On the campaign trail, McCain has vowed to abandon the practice if elected president. Clinton and Obama would continue to use it. I know Congress and the White House always jostle for superiority on various Washington issues, but not to the point where it compromises democracy and mocks the Constitution.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096616
Q: What is a Signing Statement?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
A: A "Signing Statement" is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to "faithfully execute" the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
Examples of the president's signing statements
April 30, 2006
Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/signstateann.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
http://www.slate.com/id/2168718/fr/flyout
---------
Yeah, the problem here isn't so much the signing statements (in more benign
times, they'd just be a letter indicating what the president's interpretation of
the practical effects of the law would be when he signs it).
It's that Bush has used them to turn night into day; like after the law passed
saying it is illegal to torture in any circumstances, he wrote a signing
statement saying that basically he could ignore it whenever he felt national
security was at stake, despite their being no such provision in the law just
passed.
The issue is that even though Congress specifically and intentionally wrote the
law to preclude what he is trying to do, no one can do anything about it until
it is litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, which takes forever (and most
signing statements aren't even litigated in many cases), and even then it isn't
clear that Bush would really respect Supreme Court rulings (see Rumsfeld vs.
Hamdan). It's pretty damn infuriating that he's using the fact that the courts
are slow to do whatever the hell he pleases. Maybe we need some kind of special
presidental court that only rules on issues of presidential power and can be
done quickly?
---------
No comments:
Post a Comment