Following up on some recent posts on Bush’s “signing statements,” Knight Ridder helped offer some historical context for the tactic.
“We know the textbook story of how government works. Essentially what this has done is attempt to upset that,” said Christopher Kelley, a presidential scholar at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, who generally shares Bush’s expansive view of executive authority. “These are directives to executive branch agencies saying that whenever something requires interpretation, you should interpret it the way the president wants you to.”
Other presidents have used similar tactics. For example, Jimmy Carter rebuffed congressional efforts to block his amnesty program for Vietnam-era draft dodgers. But experts say Bush has taken claims of presidential power to a whole new level. […]
Reagan adopted the strategy and used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, according to Kelley’s tally. President George H.W. Bush challenged 146 laws; President Clinton challenged 105. The current president has lodged more than 500 challenges so far.
There are a couple of angles to this. First, other presidents have issued statements with their interpretation of laws, but Bush has issued more than 500 of them with a Congress dominated by his own party. I noted the other day that Bush’s use of signing statements was “unprecedented,” prompting a few emails highlighting other presidents’ use of the tactic. But those other presidents not only used them sparingly, they used them as a counterweight to an opposition Congress. For the most part, the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue has been a rubber stamp for the Bush presidency — and he still finds it necessary to “address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify,” 500 times.
Second is the scope of Bush’s signing statements. I recall Clinton issued some statements about how he would spend federal money, appropriated by Congress, through the executive branch, even if it wasn’t what Newt Gingrich had in mind. Bush, however, issues statements to announce there are parts of laws he simply won’t follow, for example, in cases involving torture.
“They don’t like some of the things Congress has done so they assert the power to ignore it,” said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. “The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming.”
I can appreciate Bush’s drive to expand presidential power, but at this point the president seems to believe he can execute only the laws he likes, while rewriting legislation to suit his goals. In this model, Congress isn’t even necessary.
In July 2001, Bush considered give-and-take with Congress and said, “[A] dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier.” In retrospect, it’s not quite funny.