During the past five years, President Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on a range of subjects.
AOL NewsWASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Cons ution and defend the nation's security.
"There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not," said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the cons utionality of certain provisions."
Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.
"There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview," Specter, R-Pa., said.
"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Cons ution," he added. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."
A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.
"Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events," said Justice Department lawyer Mic e Boardman. "The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11."
"Congress has been more active, the president has been more active," she added. "The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute."
Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.
But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.
"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is en led to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."
But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.
"The president is not required to (veto)," Boardman said.
"Of course he's not if he signs the bill," Specter snapped back.
Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.
"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"
Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.
Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.
Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain cir stances.
Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.
06/27/06 11:06 EDT
Vexing Congress??Try Bypassing, Ignoring, deeming worthless, Congress...etc etc... Oh and btw M$M, Bill Signing Statements = Line Item Veto, or in other words, it's Uncons utional.
This " -you, Congress" of signing statements, is just another prong in Edgar's attack to increase Executive branch powers up to CE0-type powers with no checks and balances from the Legislative or Judicial branches. The phony war in Iraq is another pretext for Edgar to goose up Exec powers.
Edgar is the CIA codename for head, from Ventriloquist Edgar Bergen/Charly McCarthy, where dubya is the dummy mouthing whatever BS head wants.
Last edited by boutons_; 06-27-2006 at 03:01 PM.
Of late, Congress seems to think that if the branches are to considered co-equal, it should be more equal than either the Executive or the Judiciary. I don't support the signing statement idea and I'm appalled that the President can be so seemingly flippant about his obligation to uphold the law of the land as enacted by Congress. But, in a sense, it's little different that the forthcoming Congressional effort to demean the Supreme Court by glibly grabbing the power to enact any law it wants to with regard to the American flag.
Begrudge the arrogant Congressional power-grab all you want, but it's the executive branch that has expanded it's powers most in recent years...
Legal Experts to Senate Committee: Bush "Signing Statements" Uncons utional, Impeachable
BuzzflashBecause of the extralegal nature of the signing statements, there is nothing for Congress or the Supreme Court to actually overrule. Nevertheless, the statements are binding for policy implementation.
Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto power by declaring portions of new laws uncons utional and offering his own revisions.
"These statements, which have multiplied logarithmically (SIC) under President George W. Bush, flout the Cons ution's checks and balances and separation of powers. They usurp legislative prerogatives and evade accountability," Fein said. "The President does not enjoy a cons utional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as uncons utional and refuse to enforce it on that count."
Citing Bush's behavior as "alarming," Fein suggested that the President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Cons ution."
In a statement, Sen. Russ Feingold said that the Administration "has taken upon itself the powers of all three branches of government" by not only executing but also interpreting and creating laws as it sees fit.
Signing statements are only wrong if Bush does them. Got to remember that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote