Note to self: this law doesn't apply to me. -Bush

[kalen]

From the Boston Globe article (registration required, I think):

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.


In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

Some of the legislation to which this applies:


-''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials
-requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems
-Patriot Act.
-the torture ban
-laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia
-laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation
-laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected"

-hundreds of others just like this!


An interesting strategy to avoid limitations on Bush power, I must say.

 

[fishbob]

If he has actually committed acts based on his self-exemption from laws, I suspect he will be given a stern talking to. If he has not actually committed any such acts, then his signing statements are sort of like the bored student doodles in the public school text books.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments.

This statement should have set off alarm bells that whoever wrote this either doesn't understand checks and balances, doesn't mind misrepresenting it, or maybe even both. Bush not vetoing any bills amounts to him not overriding THEIR judgment, not him refusing them a chance to override his judgment. This sentence is exactly backwards. I also don't recall any obligation within the constitution that a president must present congress with such opportunities.

Yes, yes, I know the point of the article is about how Bush's signing statements are supposedly a backdoor way to thwart congress (though a rather untested one at that - a point rather missing from the article). But this sentence is still just bad journalism.

 

[Cleon]

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments.

What? OK, I'm no Bush fan. Not remotely. But the above sentence has to be one of the most inspid things I've ever read.

The Congress votes on a bill. Assuming they pass it, the President then signs it or vetos it. If he vetos it, the Congress can override him with a 2/3 vote. "Giving Congress no chance to override his judgement" is bull--they sent it to him to begin with! He doesn't pull these bills out of his ass, y'know. He has no power to enact legislation beyond what's sent to him by Congress.

Yeesh. Whatever happened to Civics classes?

 

[DaChew]

I'd be more impressed if Congress didn't routinely exempt itself from the laws they pass.

Also, if Congress can pass any law they like and limit the power of the Executive Branch of government, that makes the Legislative Branch the most powerful branch correct? Not supposed to be that way though right?

 

[Upchurch]

I'd be more impressed if Congress didn't routinely exempt itself from the laws they pass.

huh?

Also, if Congress can pass any law they like and limit the power of the Executive Branch of government, that makes the Legislative Branch the most powerful branch correct?

No.

 

[Luke T.]

If you actually want to educate yourself about signing statements from another source besides a journalist, go here. That one was written for Clinton's education.

 

[Luke T.]

This statement should have set off alarm bells that whoever wrote this either doesn't understand checks and balances, doesn't mind misrepresenting it, or maybe even both. Bush not vetoing any bills amounts to him not overriding THEIR judgment, not him refusing them a chance to override his judgment. This sentence is exactly backwards. I also don't recall any obligation within the constitution that a president must present congress with such opportunities.

Yes, yes, I know the point of the article is about how Bush's signing statements are supposedly a backdoor way to thwart congress (though a rather untested one at that - a point rather missing from the article). But this sentence is still just bad journalism.

It is bad wording, yes. I think what the journalist meant was that Bush is using signing statements as virtual vetoes of parts of bills, which does not give Congress the opportunity to challenge those virtual vetoes.

But it isn't all the presidents' fault. And I pluralized "president" deliberately. These signing statements, of which Bush is hardly the first and won't be the last, are more like virtual line-item vetoes. Since Congress will not give the President line-item veto power, these signing statements are his only recourse.

 

[mumblethrax]

What? OK, I'm no Bush fan. Not remotely. But the above sentence has to be one of the most inspid things I've ever read.

The Congress votes on a bill. Assuming they pass it, the President then signs it or vetos it. If he vetos it, the Congress can override him with a 2/3 vote. "Giving Congress no chance to override his judgement" is bull--they sent it to him to begin with! He doesn't pull these bills out of his ass, y'know. He has no power to enact legislation beyond what's sent to him by Congress.

Yeesh. Whatever happened to Civics classes?

I think the idea is that he's de facto vetoing the legislation by refusing to enforce it, and that Congress has no way to override that kind of executive decision.

It is poorly explained, though.

 

[Upchurch]

Since Congress will not give the President line-item veto power, these signing statements are his only recourse.

No, he could simply use his veto power, or threaten to, and work with the Congress to author a bill that he will sign and follow as written.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is bad wording, yes. I think what the journalist meant was that Bush is using signing statements as virtual vetoes of parts of bills, which does not give Congress the opportunity to challenge those virtual vetoes.

I'm not aware of any court cases in which such signing statements are given significant weight, particularly in regards to allowing the president to ignore anything within the legislation he's signing. In the absence of such a decision, it seems to me like Bush doesn't have any such power. So the real question is, does Bush actually ignore parts of legislation that he signs? If so, what legislation? THAT should be the story, if there is one, not the signing statements. But I suspect there is no real story there.

 

[Luke T.]

No, he could simply use his veto power, or threaten to, and work with the Congress to author a bill that he will sign and follow as written.

If you veto an entire bill because of a few clauses, then you end up like Kerry being accused of voting against defending our country, and things which need to be funded have their funding delayed.

All kinds of riders get attached to bills which have NOTHING to do with the purpose of the bill. That's part of the reform that is needed that McCain is making so much noise about.

The same thing with laws. Say, an automatic weapons ban bill that someone attaches a rider that says slingshots will counted as "automatic weapons" to be banned. Now, you gonna veto the entire bill to save the slingshot?

Congress needs to give the President the line-item veto. Until then, the president will have to settle for writing a signing statement that says, "I am not going to enforce the slingshot ban."

 

[casebro]

I think the idea is that he's de facto vetoing the legislation by refusing to enforce it, and that Congress has no way to override that kind of executive decision.

Isn't that what the Judicial branch is supposed to do? My guess is that nothing Bush has done has been important enough for Congress to start a legal case requiring the overturning of any signing statements.

The key here is in the statement: "But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution."

So far, I guess Mr Bush is "consistent with the Constitution", or the courts would be called in. Just as Mr Clinton was called on the carpet for lying under oath, Presidents still must follow the law.

Move along folks, there's nothing to be seen here.

 

[DavidJames]

ICongress needs to give the President the line-item veto.

Line item veto ranks right up there with term limits as simplistic, poor and short sighted solutions to real problems.

 

[mumblethrax]

Isn't that what the Judicial branch is supposed to do?

Yes, after Congress and the President have had their back and forth. The problem here is that Bush is not acting in good faith in his constitutional role; if he doesn't believe a law is constitutional, isn't the appropriate action to veto it, rather than to sign it and then refuse to enforce it?

So far, I guess Mr Bush is "consistent with the Constitution", or the courts would be called in. Just as Mr Clinton was called on the carpet for lying under oath, Presidents still must follow the law.

A Bush impeachment seems unlikely, so it's possible that he is acting in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and that he will get away with it. I think this is the sort of thing that demands the attention of citizens.

 

[DaChew]

huh?

Congress routinely exempts itself from laws it passes. Like the Freedom of Information Act, The Americans With Disabilities Act and even Cuban Cigar Import Regulations. Google "Congress Exempted Itself" for a long list of pages of laws that Congress has exempted itself from.

 

[Upchurch]

If you veto an entire bill because of a few clauses, then you end up like Kerry being accused of voting against defending our country, and things which need to be funded have their funding delayed.

Absolutely true. I think it would be a very positive thing if the general public understood that and did not blame politicians for voting against the entire bill rather than a small rider.

Perhaps Congress could give the President a line-item veto in exchange for giving themselves line-item voting. Why should the President be the only one with that level of political protection?

The same thing with laws. Say, an automatic weapons ban bill that someone attaches a rider that says slingshots will counted as "automatic weapons" to be banned. Now, you gonna veto the entire bill to save the slingshot?

Absolutely, if I feel it shouldn't be there. Send it back to Congress, tell them to fix it. That's the way the process is supposed to work.

Congress needs to give the President the line-item veto. Until then, the president will have to settle for writing a signing statement that says, "I am not going to enforce the slingshot ban."

If he is not going to enforce the law, what business does he have agreeing to enforce it by signing his name to it? Using a signing statement this way is just as bad as congressmen slipping riders on to bills.

 

[kalen]

So the real question is, does Bush actually ignore parts of legislation that he signs? If so, what legislation? THAT should be the story, if there is one, not the signing statements. But I suspect there is no real story there.

We may never know in some cases like the one where Bush asserts he doesn't have to tell congress about starting a black-op. If no one knows that signing statement is in effect, there is no way to challenge him on it.

 

[Jocko]

The problem here is that Bush is not acting in good faith in his constitutional role; if he doesn't believe a law is constitutional, isn't the appropriate action to veto it, rather than to sign it and then refuse to enforce it?

Absolutely NOT the appropriate action! The President doesn't rule on constitutionality in the same way SCOTUS doesn't veto laws. Not their role, regardless of their opinion on larger issues. Suppose the president guesses wrong on a constitutional bill and kills it; you've now abridged the powers of the legislative branch rather than let the judicial branch do its job.

A Bush impeachment seems unlikely, so it's possible that he is acting in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and that he will get away with it. I think this is the sort of thing that demands the attention of citizens.

Are you implying that the questions raised have been underrepresented in the national debate?

 

[Luke T.]

Absolutely, if I feel it shouldn't be there. Send it back to Congress, tell them to fix it. That's the way the process is supposed to work.

But the way it really works is that the next day, the President's opponents will be on TV screaming about children murdered by automatic weapons, with accompanying photos of bullet riddled corpses, and that the President is a heartless creep who doesn't think about the children.

Cue clip of the President, "I will not sign a bill that outlaws slingshots! Now watch me bowl this strike."

Cue story of housewife killed by a stray bullet during a drive-by shooting.