The Bush White House has become quite fond of “signing statements,” in which the president explains what he thinks of a bill as he signs it into law. Reagan popularized the tool in the ’80s, issuing 71 signing statements. Clinton had 105. George W. Bush passed the 500 mark a few months ago — despite working with a Congress of his own party.
The point of these signing statements, of course, is to “address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify.” Like what? Well, when Congress passed a measure prohibiting torture of detainees, Bush issues a statement saying he would ignore the ban whenever he thought he should.
The Boston Globe noted today that Bush took a similar approach with the Patriot Act.
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 bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it “a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.” But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a “signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In typical Bush fashion, the president said provisions of the legislation that required the White House to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used weren’t valid. He didn’t veto the bill; he signed the bill and quietly announced which parts of the bill he’d ignore whenever he decided he should.
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), who advocated the oversight provisions in the first place, was not amused.
Yesterday, Leahy said Bush’s assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act — provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress — represented “nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.”
“The president’s signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word,” Leahy said in a prepared statement. “The president’s constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so.”
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the White House has taken a “mind-bogglingly expansive conception” of executive power. “On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism,” Golove said.
Congressional Republicans will, in all likelihood, allow Bush to run roughshod over the legal process once again. It’s stunning to think of the precedent this sets, but given what we’ve seen, the GOP just doesn’t care.
On an unrelated matter, Digby recently said, “I’m beginning to think they are actively trying to destroy the Constitution just for the hell of it.” It’s an observation that seems to apply to far too many issues.