Power to the Max!

[Johnny Coli]

Back on March 24, I made this post linking to a Boston Globe article reporting on Bush's signing statement that he tacked onto the end of the Patriot Act, essentially saying he could do whatever the hell he wants because he's the king.

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

 

The same reporter, Charlie Savage, had another article in this past week's Boston Sunday Globe, that shows just how many laws Bush has decided he can disobey.

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.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

[...]

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.

 

Here's a few examples:

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.

 

This one's kind of relevent to me, from a professional standpoint:

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.

 

 

Just for comparison, the globe included this graphic showing the number of times this was done by Bush 1 (232 times in 4 years) and Bill (140 times in 8 years). For those a bit slow, Bush 2 has done this over 750 times in 5 years.

 

To date Bush is yet to pull the VETO stamp out of the drawer. And why should he? He can just "re-interpret" anything he doesn't like. Why go through the hassel, right? No point in getting everyone worked up, right?

 

Wrong. Congress is finally on to him.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee [Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania], accusing the White House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.

I'll believe it when I see it, of course. Because with the Repubs holding all the cards and committee chairs, an "oversight hearing" is just as big a sham as Dubya's signing of the laws he's going to ignore in the first place.

 

That is unless the Dems can get back at least one of the houses this fall.

[Ghost of BiB]

Shall we buy you some lube?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

To date Bush is yet to pull the VETO stamp out of the drawer.  And why should he?  He can just "re-interpret" anything he doesn't like.  Why go through the hassel, right?  No point in getting everyone worked up, right?

 

Wrong.  Congress is finally on to him.

 

I'll believe it when I see it, of course.  Because with the Repubs holding all the cards and committee chairs, an "oversight hearing" is just as big a sham as Dubya's signing of the laws he's going to ignore in the first place.

 

That is unless the Dems can get back at least one of the houses this fall. 

682788[/snapback]

 

So Specter's pissed that the President's interpretation of legislation isn't the same as Congress'...and his solution is to ram Congressional interpretation down the executive's throat. And you're okay with that?

 

Specifically, you're okay with BOTH of these branches of government trying to take that responsibility away from where it belongs: the courts?

[Johnny Coli]

So Specter's pissed that the President's interpretation of legislation isn't the same as Congress'...and his solution is to ram Congressional interpretation down the executive's throat.  And you're okay with that?

 

Specifically, you're okay with BOTH of these branches of government trying to take that responsibility away from where it belongs: the courts?   

682821[/snapback]

He already has veto power if he doesn't like what Congress sends him. Why even sign the legislation if you're not going to obey it?

 

This isn't about Congress shoving any interpretation down his throat. They send it up to him, he can veto it and send it back, etc. Their only power would be to override his veto...which they can't because he never has. He justs adds on a signatory statement "re-interpreting" the legislation.

 

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.

[...]

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."

Yeah, OK.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I saw that too Johnny, why is that a surprise, not sure though that most Administrations don't do some of that, mostly through nonimplementation.

 

Flouting or running against specific language is different and I only wish the article was a little more focused and concise.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

He already has veto power if he doesn't like what Congress sends him.  Why even sign the legislation if you're not going to obey it? 

 

This isn't about Congress shoving any interpretation down his throat.  They send it up to him, he can veto it and send it back, etc.  Their only power would be to override his veto...which they can't because he never has.  He justs adds on a signatory statement "re-interpreting" the legislation. 

 

Simple, really...it weakens the legislative branch and strengthens the executive. And it's neither branch's responsibility: if the legislative and executive branches are arguing interpretation between themselves, there's a far more fundamental problem with the government than "Bush bad" or "Congress bad"

 

Yeah, OK.

682957[/snapback]

 

Yeah. I don't see a problem with either of those - particularly the first one. You think it's wrong that attorneys should be required to abide by the policies established by their superiors?