Making a ‘statement’

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.

What disgusts me the most is the fact that every single Democrat hasn’t stood up against this. Specter’s statements should be read at every chance, and followed up with a categorical statement that Bush is violating the Constitution and that the Republicans are allowing him to do it.

These people swore to uphold the Constitution, and they’re burning it.

  • You have a good point about the Democrats.

    However, I’m also not hopeful that Specter will be able to do anything about this. He has a history of folding after talking tough.

  • When I hear Specter say he’s going to challenge the President before the committee , I see a little bitty bug eyed dog with a jeweled collar cut lose with a savage “Yip yip yip yip” from the back seat of his master’s parked limo.

  • Isn’t there a word for people like Specter who puff their chests and talk the talk but fold quicker than an origami master when it’s time to walk the walk?

    Oh, yeah: politician.

  • Spector? I don’t think so. He has NO backbone. He complains a lot which is better than some of the Dems are doing, but he always backs away from a real confrontation. Because of that quality, he has few fans. I used to think he was OK, but he has disapointed me so many times that I think they have something on him.

  • Specter will call a hearing. Attorney General Gonzalez, or perhaps the White House council, will politely tell Specter to go fuck himself. Specter will take the suggestion into consideration and call the hearing to a close, satistifed with another day’s work completed.

  • Warning: “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” reference ahead …

    Bush’s signing statements are his way of saying–

    “Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!”

    Where is Humphrey Bogart (or Henry Fonda or Jimmy Stewart) when you need them. (Depressed.)

  • Specter will cave. He always does. Trouble is, he’s the best Democrat we have.

  • The signing statements aren’t about opinion, they are about contempt. It expresses W’s contempt for Congress, for separation of powers and for the Constitution. If Arlen wants to put in his dentures and take a bite out of W, now would be a perfect opportunity to change his reputation as a toothless wonder.

  • “There is no historical precedent for what this president is doing.”

    Well, that’s sure true. On topic, Specter is the modern Sysiphus. Every day he gets up and says to himself and any TV camera that’s handy: “Today I’m gonna act like a real man, the only one this chamber of bloated cowards.” Then when the opportunity presents itself, back to bed he goes, reliant on the fact that by tomorrow all with be forgotten (except by the Carpetbagger).

  • ***Isn’t there a word for people like Specter who puff their chests and talk the talk but fold quicker than an origami master when it’s time to walk the walk? Oh, yeah: politician.***
    Comment by doubtful

    There are a few others. Lap-dog. Lap-puppy. Chia pet. Pet rock. Punt dog. Goldfish-in-a-bowl. Puppet. Fraud. Blow hard. Fake. Faux. Phony.

    Or, one could simply refer to him as “Senator Tail Tucking Cut And Run Cowardly Yellow Dog.”

  • And now we know, #6, that Gonzales was so busy yesterday he had to send a deputy assistant underling to the hearing. I wonder if he sent Sen. Specter a note of apology?

  • Comments are closed.