Throughout his first six years in office, Bush had a habit of signing congressional legislation into law, but using “signing statements” to explain which parts of the law he didn’t feel like following.
For the better part of 2007, the president behaved himself, sticking to the more traditional sign-or-veto approach embraced by his predecessors, but towards the end of the year, the signing statements started making a comeback.
This week was even more offensive than most. Charlie Savage, whose award-winning coverage of the issue has been a journalistic highlight of the last seven years, has the story (which was ignored by nearly every other major news outlet).
President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.
Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
When Savage writes that Bush doesn’t feel bound to “obey them,” he means, of course, that Bush doesn’t feel bound to obey the laws that he just helped to create.
Of course, the president could have vetoed the bill if he believed the provisions were unconstitutional, but that kind of thinking is so pre-9/11. It’s better, Bush decided, to sign the bills into law, and then tell Congress why he’s going to ignore them.
The closer one looks at this, the more constitutionally reprehensible it becomes. Congress passed legislation that said U.S. funds could not go towards establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Bush signed the bill into law, but added that he would feel free to use U.S. funds towards establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
Dan Froomkin translates: “The overall message to Congress was clear: I’m not bound by your laws.” Froomkin added:
The three other sections Bush reserved the right to ignore are also significant. One mandates the establishment of a commission to investigate waste and fraud in military contracts; another strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for federal contractors; a third requires the president to explain in writing each time an intelligence agency refuses to respond to a document request from the House and Senate armed services committees.
But it’s Bush’s cavalier dismissal of the ban on funding for permanent military bases that really speaks volumes — not just about his view of the role of the legislative branch, but also about his intentions for Iraq.
An overwhelming majority of the American public wants a withdrawal of U.S. troops; the Democrats who control congress, and may take over the White House in a year, are committed to doing just that. But, by keeping open the possibility of permanent military bases, Bush raises suspicions domestically that he is trying to lock the nation’s armed forces into a long-term presence — while risking increased anger in Iraq over what many perceive as a long-term project of imperial domination.
TP, which had a great item on this yesterday, also noted that Bush has “issued more than 151 signing statements challenging 1149 provisions of laws.” This, as you might imagine, is more than every other president in American history combined.
Just 355 days to go.