As a rule, Law Day, a ceremonial holiday since 1958, goes by largely unnoticed. It was established as a Cold War counterpart to May 1, the biggest day on the socialist calendar. Ever since, presidents have issued proclamations that go by largely unnoticed and unread.
But this year seems a little different. Bush issued a proclamation about today’s “holiday,” explaining, “Our Nation is built upon the rule of law and guided by our founding promise of freedom, equality, and justice for all. Law Day is an opportunity to celebrate the Constitution and the laws that protect our rights and liberties and to recognize our responsibility as citizens to uphold the values of a free and just society. Generations of Americans have served the cause of justice and shaped our legal institutions to ensure that the blessings of liberty extend to every citizen.”
The New York Times editorial board doesn’t appreciate the irony.
As long as there was a national consensus about the importance of the rule of law, Law Day felt superfluous, like celebrating gravity. But for six years now, the rule of law has been under attack. An array of doctrines has emerged to undermine it, like the enemy combatant doctrine, which says people can be held indefinitely without trial, and the unitary executive doctrine, which insists that a president can do as he wants in many areas, no matter what Congress says.
In keeping with tradition, President Bush has issued a proclamation inviting Americans today to “celebrate the Constitution and the laws that protect our rights and liberties.” It rings more than a little hollow, though, as he continues to trample on civil liberties in the war on terror, and stands by an attorney general who has politicized the Justice Department to a shocking degree.
The less committed a president is to the law, the more need there is for Law Day, which makes it a holiday whose time has come.
Quite right. Reading the president proclaim that the nation is “built upon the rule of law” is a bit like hearing Ann Coulter proclaim the importance of civility, respect, and tolerance in our public discourse.
The WaPo’s Ruth Marcus also addressed the subject today, noting, “If only the president would practice what he proclaims.”
Luckily for Bush, these proclamations tend to be short, so he didn’t have to explain how they squared with his warrantless wire-tapping — despite a statute that requires warrants.
Or a view of presidential power so inflated that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was moved to declare that a “state of war is not a blank check for the President.”
Or the blizzard of signing statements asserting presidential authority to ignore whatever law he had just approved.
The most shameful example: Bush’s treatment of the anti-torture amendment. The president said he would interpret that “in a manner consistent with” his constitutional authority.
In other words, if he felt like it.
The president’s proclamation concludes, “The strength of our legal system requires the ongoing commitment of every citizen.” You first, Mr. President.