Dems ask Bush for a ‘sign’ on signing statements

As you probably heard, the Boston Globe ran a deeply disturbing item a few days ago, which highlighted the fact that the [tag]president[/tag] has “claimed the authority to [tag]disobey[/tag] more than 750 [tag]laws[/tag] enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to [tag]set aside[/tag] any statute passed by [tag]Congress[/tag] when it conflicts with his interpretation of the [tag]Constitution[/tag].”

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.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.

It’s simply stunning. The president is working with a Congress controlled by his fellow [tag]Republicans[/tag], who tend to do whatever he asks of them. And yet, after his allies have passed over 750 pieces of legislation, Bush has decided that he’ll sign the bills into law, he just won’t follow them afterwards. There’s simply no precedent for Bush’s sweeping approach to reshuffling the constitutional deck.

Yesterday, some [tag]Senate[/tag] [tag]Democrats[/tag] had the temerity to argue that [tag]Bush[/tag] is not a [tag]king[/tag].

”We’re a government of laws, not men,” Senate minority leader [tag]Harry Reid[/tag], Democrat of Nevada, said in a statement. ”It is not for George W. Bush to disregard the Constitution and decide that he is above the law.”

Senator [tag]Patrick Leahy[/tag] of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of attempting to concentrate ever more government power in their own hands. ”The Bush-Cheney administration has cultivated an insidious brand of unilateralism that regularly crosses into an arrogance of power,” Leahy said in a statement. ”The scope of the administration’s assertions of power is stunning, and it is chilling.”

Senator Edward M. [tag]Kennedy[/tag], Democrat of Massachusetts, also said that the Bush administration, abetted by ”a compliant Republican Congress,” was undermining the checks and balances that ”guard against abuses of power by any single branch of government.”

The Globe noted that Bush’s use of “signing statements” to explain which laws he’ll follow and which ones he won’t are, according to constitutional scholars, an attack on the legal process. It’s the kind of thing that Congress, which used to take some pride in its legislative responsibilities, might want to look into, except they refuse to even raise any questions or hold a single committee hearing. GOP lawmakers are, Pat Leahy said, content to let Bush “pick and choose which laws he deems appropriate to follow.”

”Just as disturbing as the president’s use of press releases to announce which laws he will follow is the abject failure of the Republican-controlled Congress to act as a check against this executive power grab,” Leahy said. ”Until Republican leaders let Congress fulfill its oversight role, this White House will have no incentive to stop this [tag]abuse of power[/tag].”

Reason #4,636,921 for a Democratic Congress.

”We’re a government of laws, not men,” Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in a statement. ”It is not for George W. Bush to disregard the Constitution and decide that he is above the law.”

Hey Harry – Russ Feingold is still holding on Line 1…

  • Just another example of how reality has a liberal bias. (Why is it that until lately, comedians, Mr. Colbert in this case, are the only people with enough balls to speak the truth?)

  • I guess this means Bush is ushering in the era of anarchy. Buckle up and hold on tight.

  • Congress will probably pass a law regulating the use of signing statements and then Bush will sign it and then quietly issue a statement saying he doesn’t have to follow it.

  • For a majority party about to lose power, the Repubs are recklessly establishing precedents for the institutionalized abuse of presidential power by the majority party. Could it be they are not planning on leaving soon?
    It’s almost like they know something we don’t know.

  • “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – just so long I’m the dictator.”
    George Bush, December 18, 2000

    And to think that some people thought he was kidding.

  • “Could it be they are not planning on leaving soon?
    It’s almost like they know something we don’t know.” – – – kali.

    Someone should remind these clowns that their overworked, understaffed, overpoliticized, undersupplied, precious armed forces are pretty much spead out all over the planet—and they haven’t stopped teaching about “the 18th-century rebellion against some whacked-out tyrant named George” in our nation’s schools yet. What was it that Jefferson once said? Something, I believe, about “taking arms….”

  • Aiiyyeee! When will the Dem leadership stop using the word “arrogance” as the signal mode of their criticisms of Bush?

    Doing so:
    – Enables GOPers to cast such criticisms as “personal attacks” by “Bush haters”
    – Pulls focus away from the un-Consitutional acts themselves and onto the manner in which they’re done (much like the “invading Iraq/Iran was/is a good idea, but Bush/Rumsfeld screwed it up” argument)
    – Limits the rhetorical appeal of the Dems’ argument to only those predisposed to agree with (i.e., those who don’t think the President — whomever occupies the office — should be strong/bold/active)
    – Further backs the Dems into the culturally “feminized” position they already occupy

    Yes, of course, Bush is an arrogant turd who engages in at least un-Constitutional if not criminal misdeeds — but his arrogance is the LEAST of his offenses, as well as the least effective angle of attack.

  • Goerge W Bush is a tyrant and it has taken a long time for the media to ask why that is OK. I read the Boston Globe article, and it is a good piece of work, but it is a little long in comming. I am so afraid for our country because I am certain that the elections will be at least partly rigged by the phoney voting machines,

    This week we saw the immigrants take to the streets and I wonder why they act more like Americans than the so called citizens do. Don’t depend on the elections to save us because they probably won’t. Even it the Dems get control, and I hope they do, what will change? There is more to being a citizen than just voting every couple of years and complaining the rest of the time.

    I wish I had the answer but I don’t really know what to do beyond voting. When we get to vote, what choices will we have? It costs so much to run for office that the promises are made long before the voters get a choice. We usually get to decide between two vanilla candidates, one leaning to the right and the other not quite as right leaning. We still have Joe Biden voting for the Bankruptcy Bill and Hillary supporting the Iraq war.

    GWB needs to be impeached and go to jail for what he has done. Who will say so? Joe Biden ? Hillary Clinton? Don’t hold your breath. And I say so with little glee, wishing and hoping that I am wrong.

  • I agree with Gracious. We are in serious trouble. The “election” of 2000 was a bloodless coup; the 2004 election night showed stark differences between exit polls and the so-called results. Nothing was done, no protest, the insanity went on, and we have lost our country.
    If people don’t wake up to the truth, it is about over.

  • Bush’s job is not to interpret the law, but to execute it.

    To determine the constitionality (or otherwise) of a given law, someone files a lawsuit, and the courts then rule. Junior’s opinion has no constitutional force, and no relevance.

  • Comments are closed.