Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Hell Iraq | Cantwell/McGavick Debate: A Qu... »

Friday, October 6, 2006

Remember Checks and Balances?

posted by on October 6 at 13:59 PM

Bush doesn’t.

The Boston Globe reports that according to a new congressional study, the president has used special “signing statements” to claim a right to disobey or ignore portions of more than 800 laws, including the torture ban, provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and a law requiring the Homeland Security Department to follow minimum privacy standards when conducting background checks. In contrast, all previous presidents combined issued 600 such statements.

In a 27-page report written for lawmakers, the research service said the Bush administration is using signing statements as a means to slowly condition Congress into accepting the White House’s broad conception of presidential power, which includes a presidential right to ignore laws he believes are unconstitutional. […]

Under most interpretations of the Constitution, the report said, some of the legal assertions in Bush’s signing statements are dubious. For example, it said, the administration has suggested repeatedly that the president has exclusive authority over foreign affairs and has an absolute right to withhold information from Congress. Such assertions are “generally unsupported by established legal principles,” the report said.

Despite such criticism, the administration has continued to issue signing statements for new laws. Last week, for example, Bush signed the 2007 military budget bill, but then issued a statement challenging 16 of its provisions.

The bill bars the Pentagon from using any intelligence that was collected illegally, including information about Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable government surveillance.

In Bush’s signing statement, he suggested that he alone could decide whether the Pentagon could use such information. His signing statement instructed the military to view the law in light of “the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

Bush also challenged three sections that require the Pentagon to notify Congress before diverting funds to new purposes, including top-secret activities or programs. Congress had already decided against funding. Bush said he was not bound to obey such statutes if he decided, as commander in chief, that withholding such information from Congress was necessary to protect security secrets.

So, to recap: Bush believes that he can ignore the provisions of bills he signs into law if he doesn’t agree with them. So far, he’s used the signing statements to justify torture, spending tax dollars without the permission of Congress, and ignoring the 14th Amendment. He also claimed the right to disregard minimum requirements for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, one of three dozen provisions of the homeland security bill he unilaterally rejected.

These are scary times.

RSS icon Comments

1

This all makes sense if you agree with the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

Posted by B | October 6, 2006 2:10 PM
2

He is the DECIDER, god dammit. Did you not get the memo?

Posted by Undecided | October 6, 2006 2:13 PM
3

People forget. The Republicans have mastered the art of diversion, in order to abet the forgetting. But it's good you remember, Erica. Because I don't think anything Bush is doing is as bad as these signing statements. They MUST be declared unconstitutional.

Posted by Fnarf | October 6, 2006 2:14 PM
4

Now you cry foul?

Where was the outrage when on November 3rd 1993 the Clinton Justice Department first explained Clinton’s use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation (at that time a new and unprecedented use of signing statements) as follows:

“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.”

Previous to this expansion of Presidential powers, signing statements were generally used as triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations or as "interpretive signing statements" when a President wanted to get in the last word on questions of interpretation.

Is it so shocking that Bush would want to exercise this new power that Clinton discovered?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 6, 2006 2:32 PM
5

Clinton used it once or twice. Bush has used it what, 800 times? It is clear that this shouldn't be allowed to either Democrat or Republican presidents, but especially modern Republican presidents, who have no concept of right or wrong to hold them back anymore.

Posted by Fnarf | October 6, 2006 2:49 PM
6

“Clinton used it once or twice”

Not true.

Actually, as of October 4, 2006 Bush has issued 29 more signing statements than Clinton did in his entire Presidency. Granted, he has challenged more laws in his 134 signing statements than Clinton did in his 105 signing statements (810 vs. 134) but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that the original abuse was Clinton’s, and without his precedent, Bush wouldn’t have the cover to do this.

That’s the thing about setting a precedent, which Clinton did, it can come back to bite you.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 6, 2006 3:14 PM
7

I'm amazed that whenever we talk about Bush's criminal excesses- and there are plenty of them to talk about- some dumbass can be counted on to bring up Clinton. All last week, when most rational people were talking about the Republican pedophile, you could count on a handful of pathological dorks to mention Clinton.

First point YGTBKM: Clinton is not the president. He has been out of office for 6 years and will never be in office again. George W. Bush is president now, George W. Bush is responsible for the sick and twisted view of the law that this administration is promulgating, and George W. Bush has the blood of 3000 American troops on his hands. Not Clinton.

Second Point: All of these Clintonian examples that the brain damaged Republicans bring up are things that you supposedly disapprove of. The Republicans disapproved of Clinton's signing statements, disapproved of his extra-marital affairs, etc. It doesn't make logical sense to say "I disapproved of these things when the Democrat did them, therefore I approve of them when the Republican does them." Moron, if you wanted to prosecute Clinton for these things then you should want to want to prosecute Bush twice as much!!! The're are as bad as they ever were and now YOUR GUY is doing them! Only much more so!

Get it together fool.

Posted by Gurldoggie | October 6, 2006 3:25 PM
8

Just syaing...

-and-

He is not "my guy" (and neither was Clinton).

They should both be prosecuted.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 6, 2006 4:00 PM
9

Just to be clear, My Opinion…

All signing statements are bad.

Clinton invented them and abused them.

Bush is abusing them.

Without Clinton’s initial abuse, Bush would have less cover for his current abuse.

I dislike both of them equally for what they have done to this nation.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 6, 2006 4:08 PM
10

get your facts straight YCBKM...NPR and others did long stories on this several weeks ago (hard to figure out why the Globe [and Stranger] is just catching up with it).

Clinton was hardly the first to use signing statements. GB1 used them and there are examples of such statments going back decades...if not to GW.

GB2 has used such statements more than all previous presidents combined and uses them in ways that no other prez (including BC) has.

Posted by gnossos | October 6, 2006 5:14 PM
11

YGBKM is even more wrong than that, Gnossos. The first president to use signing statements? James Monroe. The fifth president. ;p

Clinton didn't invent signing statements any more than Gore invented the internet.

W is by far the outlier as far as signing statements, using them far more, and more broadly, than any other before him.

Separation of powers was one of the major innovations in government structure endowed to us by the founding fathers. We abandon it at out peril.

Posted by golob | October 6, 2006 5:24 PM
12

Gnossos:

Just because you say it doesn’t make it so.

Here are some facts:
James Monroe issued the first signing statement. 75 statements were issued prior to the Regan Presidency. Reagan and George H. W. Bush made 142 signing statements between them. Bill Clinton made 105 signing statements. As of October 4, 2006, George W. Bush had made 134 signing statements. So your statement that “GB2 has used such statements more than all previous presidents combined” is untrue. Previous presidents combined = 322, GB2 = 134 (10/4/06). 134 is still less than 322 (isn’t it?).

Prior to the 1980s signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations. In 1986 the Regan Justice Department issued a memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" to be provided for use in questions of interpretation. In 1993 the Clinton Justice Department expanded the power to use signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation. This use as defined by Clintons Justice Department is the use that George W. Bush is making.

So, while it is true that “Clinton was hardly the first to use signing statements”, it is also true that Clinton was the first to use signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation. Furthermore, it is also true that Clinton’s use of signing statements as such is the precedent that forms the basis upon which George W. Bush is using them. Therefore, it is NOT TRUE that he “uses them in ways that no other prez (including BC) has” but rather it is true that he uses them in ways that no president previous to Clinton did.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 6, 2006 6:05 PM
13

YGBKM...right back at ya on the "Just because you say it doesn’t make it so."

To repeat what the study and others here have said, GB2 has used signing statements for over 800 different laws, which is far more than all previous presidents combined.

And while you may be more well informed than the average bear, your statements go against what a whole bevy of contstitutional scholars -- both conservative and liberal -- have been saying about this issue for quite a while now. And, frankly, I would take their opinions over yours (or mine).

Posted by gnossos | October 6, 2006 6:34 PM
14

gnossos

Apparently you are confusing opinion with fact. For the facts, I refer you to my posting #12 above.

While the facts are indisputable and can be easily confirmed by looking at the record and reading the Reagan Justice Department memo from 1986 and the Clinton Justice Department memo from 1993 (they are quite clear in their pleadings), opinions are open to debate.

My opinion is that the use of signing statements by a President to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation is abuse of power. Neither Bush nor Clinton would agree with my opinion. Clinton developed the opinion that such use is permitted and Bush has concurred with it.

As to who is worse? Clinton set the precedent of using signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation (fact) Bush has exercised them for that purpose most often (fact). I vacillate over who is more despicable, the one that introduced the vice or the one that is more proficient in its practice. In my opinion it is permissible to hold them in equal contempt. One for introducing the corruption, the other for propagating it. They have, in my opinion, both done terrible damage to this nation. One broke the window, the other stole the silver. The crime is compound and they are both accomplices to it.

Once again, please try to remember that facts are different from opinions, and opinions are more informed when supported by and understood in context to facts. Reasonable people can disagree in opinion, but facts are indisputable.

Posted by you_gotta_be_kidding_me | October 7, 2006 1:36 AM
15

Film at 11, ECB. We know he doesn't care about checks and balances.

Posted by Gomez | October 7, 2006 11:43 AM
16

There's a difference between saying you're not going to enforce an unconstitutional law and simply deciding you're not going to follow the law just because.

Posted by Aexia | October 7, 2006 4:56 PM
17

Alexia - for sure. BUT it is not "just because."

It is a obvious plan to consolidate even more power in the executive branch - can we all say benign dictator - elected not imposed by the army.

George Bush is just inches from that power. And the fear of every progressive on the millions of s\blogs should be what next?

I enjoy freedom, real freedom. Dictatorship is not on my agenda, from any corner.

Posted by Jack | October 8, 2006 9:41 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).