It’s been six months since [tag]Bush[/tag]’s [tag]signing statements[/tag] — those pesky little White House documents in which the president signs legislation into law, but points out he’ll [tag]ignore[/tag] certain provisions of a [tag]law[/tag] whenever he wants to — first generated attention in the political world. As regular readers know (from dozens of posts on the subject, the Bush [tag]White House[/tag] has enthusiastically embraced the policy on everything from the Patriot Act to torture. There is no historical precedent for what this president is doing.
Today, the Senate is going to at least look at the practice.
A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?
Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.
That’s the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration’s abuse of power.
“It’s a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution,” Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I’m interested to hear from the administration just what research they’ve done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.”
Specter has talked tough on this subject before — in May, he asked, ”What’s the point of having a statute if … the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn’t like?” — so I’m delighted to see that he’s actually showing some follow-through by holding a hearing.
If nothing else, for the first time, the White House is put in a position where it has to explain its position on the issue.
[T]he topic came up at this morning’s White House press gaggle just before a Senate hearing on the topic was set to begin, and press secretary Tony Snow explained: “It’s important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.”
And if that were true, it might be a reasonable defense. But Bush isn’t “expressing reservations,” he’s issuing signing statements that announce which parts of laws the president has decided not to follow.
Similarly, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a Bush sycophant, said, “There’s less here than meets the eye. The president is entitled to express his opinion.” Except that’s wrong too — historically, presidents who have used signing statements did so to express opinions, but Bush is using (abusing) them in far more sweeping ways. For example, when Congress passed a measure prohibiting torture of detainees, Bush issues a statement saying he would ignore the ban whenever he felt like it. When Congress passed the Patriot Act with certain duties for the executive branch, Bush took a similar approach, telling Congress that he’d ignore the provisions he didn’t like.
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.
“Expressing reservations”? “Expressing his opinion”? Hardly. Indeed, it’s worth noting that even conservative legal scholars find the president’s approach ridiculous.
One prominent conservative, Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School, said it is “scandalous” for the administration to argue that the commander in chief can bypass statutes in national security matters.
“It’s just wrong,” Epstein said. “It is just crazy as a matter of constitutional interpretation. There are some pretty clear issues, and this is one of them.”
What will come of today’s hearing? Probably not much. Most Republicans are happy to let Bush take on the duties of all three branches of government at the same time, and even if they weren’t, there’s no indication that the White House would care. Still, it’s at least mildly encouraging to see the hearing happen, if for no other reason, than to help get the word out about this president’s radical and unprecedented power grab.