Remember grade school civics? Remember being taught that the legislative branch of government makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws? Most of us learn at a young age that the civics lesson is more hope than reality, but few realize just how completely broken the system of checks and balances really is.In an important and disturbing piece (registration required) by staff reporter Charlie Savage, the Boston Globe today reveals that, "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."
In contrast, President George H.W. Bush in four years challenged 232 statutes, while Bill Clinton in eight years "only" challenged 140. George W. Bush has set aside more than 750 laws in only five years, effectively turning the Congress into a kind of Saddam-era Iraqi Parliament that only gets to make suggestions to the Usurper In Chief.
Here are some outrageous examples from the Globe story:
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.
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."
Between a president that ignores the laws and a Roberts Supreme Court that could turn out to the most reactionary activists in the history of the country, the US Congress may well be the most irrelevant legislative body in the world. I know it sounds like a cliche, but it is long past time for we the citizens to take our government back.
6 comments:
I don't think George has a disregard for the law. He just thinks he isthe law and you gotta admit he has a pretty high regard for himself. Total power trip.
The guy obviously has size issues and is over-compensating.
(You can't get this kind of in-depth analysis just anywhere, you know)
Uh-oh. What if I just hampered true democratic discourse through overly flippant and overly obvious quasi-humor which wasn't even that funny. That would be bad.
Okay seriously then. News like that is creepy and scary. I don't feel like there is jack I can do about it so I shut down. I read stuff about the voting machines and the companies that design and oversee them, it's alarming as hell, and I wonder. You see all these people who are really angry and disillusioned about government - Katrina, the war, Gas prices, spying, torture, corporate thieves, blah blah blah and NOTHING changes and I wonder. It just doesn't make any sense to me. K? It just doesn't.
It must be terrible to go through life actually believing all the conspiricy theories put out there by the left. I feel for you. Try turning off Keith Olbermann.
It must be nice going through life holding your hands over your ears yelling "LALALALALALALALA!" whenever anything is spoken/written that doesn't agree with your/your decider's worldview. Maybe it is time to turn off O'Really and take credit for your own statements.
Bob (Roberts) Knudsen
First, all Presidents have used signing statements. Clinton used them regularly... and it is in their perogative to indicate to the legislative branch those provisions which the President feels are encroaching on presidential powers, typically those involving the military since the President is the Commander in Chief. These disagreements are ultimately decided by the Judicial Branch. This is called checks & balances. Here are some examples of instances where signing statements were used in the past... from this 2003 presentation by Christopher Kelley of the University of Miami-Ohio.
The first signing statement was issued by James Monroe... at issue was, yes... you guessed it, the military:
[In] reality the first use of the signing statement was done by President James Monroe. President Monroe issued a statement regarding interpretation of a law he had signed a month earlier. The law both reduced the size of the army and laid out how the president would select new officers. Monroe had gotten criticism from Congress for not abiding by the congressional demand to appoint officers, instead arguing in his signing statement that the president, not the Congress, had the constitutional responsibility of appointing officers.
Another signing statement (which to me seems to be an overreach by the executive, since it dealt with "interstate" commerce and had a tenuous relationship to the military) was issued by President Roosevelt:
One such instance came when President Roosevelt signed the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The Emergency Price Control Act was designed to help stabilize the economy during the height of the Second World War. Roosevelt objected to a section of the bill that was a “protectionist measure for farmers”30 in the United States. Roosevelt stated: …
there is nothing contained therein which can be construed as a limitation upon the existing powers of governmental agencies, such as the Commodity Credit Corporation to make sales of agricultural commodities in the normal conduct of their operations.
Roosevelt further demanded that the provision be removed and if the Congress did not remove it, he would treat it as a nullity. Roosevelt had solicited and received advice from the Dean of the Oregon Law School regarding what powers were afforded him during a time of war, particularly what rights did he have to ignore sections of laws he determined interfered with the war effort. The Dean told him that “if you decide that a certain course of action is essential as a war measure, it supersedes congressional action.” The Congress yielded and the section was removed.
Now, I know that this is the heart of the matter. The Left fails to recognize that we are at war... until they recognize this fact, we will find few things on which to agree.
And Bill Clinton's assistant Attorney General, Walter Dellinger, made the following statement to Abner Mikva regarding signing statements:
[the P]resident has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency. Where the President believes that an enactment unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it, unless he is convinced that he court would disagree with his assessment…[I]f resolution in the
courts is unlikely and the President cannot look to a judicial determination, he must shoulder the responsibility of protecting the constitutional role of the presidency. (
And finally, even President Carter used a signing statement to invalidate portions of a law that he disagreed with:
For example, in the “Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for fiscal year1978”5, an amendment was added that prohibited “the use of funds under this Act to carry out [President Carter’s] amnesty program [for the Vietnam War draft resisters].” When President Carter signed the law, he noted his objection to the amendment because it interfered with his pardon power, was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and denied due process of the law. To carry out the pardon, President Carter would have to process all of the re-entry applications for those draft resisters that left the country. Even though the Justice Department announced that the restriction would prevent the re-entry of many of the draft resisters, in the end the Carter administration ignored the amendment and processed all of the applications.
Of course, this historical analysis will have little effect on Charlie Savage and his anti-American fans. All that matters is the headline and the charge against Bush - nevermind the facts.
Bush is rightly making his opinions known regarding his executive powers.
To the tune of more than SEVEN HUNDRED signing statements, Bush is making his opinions known!!! And when the court is packed with little right wing absolutists we can certainly depend on checks and balances can't we?
It was noted on C-SPAN last night that Clinton issued a tad over four hundred such statements in eight years and that other presidents had issued far, far less. The total of George Bush is simply astonishing to any serious observer when coupled with his contempt for congressional restraint on his powers .
Viewed strictly in a partisan light Bush apologists will have no trouble in excusing him but in reality it is but one more manifestation of our president's disregard for our system and for its citizens. This is, I submit, a toxic president. I expect the full extent of the damage done to our country at his hands only to be discovered by historians long after all of us are gone.
I must say it is disappointing to hear people excuse the Bush excesses time after time without so much as a glance at the REAL harm he and his henchmen are doing. That, it seems to me, is the greatest disservice that can be done to the country we all love
Post a Comment