I know I’ve written about 30 posts on [tag]Bush[/tag] and his “[tag]signing statements[/tag],” but it’s an issue that a) doesn’t receive the attention it deserves; and b) never ceases to amaze me.
In a nutshell, the Bush [tag]White House[/tag] has enthusiastically embraced a policy in which the president will sign legislation passed by Congress into law, but will issue a signing statement, explaining which parts of the law he’s going to [tag]ignore[/tag], including bills relating to the Patriot Act and torture.
Over the weekend, the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage, who has led the way in reporting on this issue, explained exactly how the process works in the West Wing. As it turns out, the creative approach to the law originates in Cheney’s office (surprise, surprise).
The office of Vice President Dick [tag]Cheney[/tag] routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president’s desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power, according to former White House and Justice Department officials.
The officials said Cheney’s legal adviser and chief of staff, [tag]David Addington[/tag], is the Bush administration’s leading architect of the “signing statements” the president has appended to more than 750 laws. The statements assert the president’s right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution. […]
Previous vice presidents have had neither the authority nor the interest in reviewing legislation. But Cheney has used his power over the administration’s legal team to promote an expansive theory of presidential authority. Using signing statements, the administration has challenged more laws than all previous administrations combined.
“Addington could look at whatever he wanted,” said one former White House lawyer who helped prepare signing statements and who asked not to be named because he was describing internal deliberations. “He had a roving commission to get involved in whatever interested him.”
Apparently, White House and Justice Department lawyers began combing through congressional bills, looking for any provisions that might limit Bush’s presidency in any way, because that’s the way Cheney and Addington want the legal process to work.
Douglas Kmiec, who was head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan, said signing statements used to be issued to avoid constitutional problems, but the Bush gang is using them to “invent” constitutional problems.
Ironically, the WaPo reported over the weekend that when it came to the controversy between the administration and Congress over the FBI’s raid of William Jefferson’s office, it was Addington who allegedly emphasized the importance of the separation of powers. But as it happens, Addington and Cheney (and Bush, if he knew what was going on around him) are only concerned with institutional power and responsibilities insofar as it strengthens the White House.
I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but the Bush gang is citing a legal authority they do not have. Congress is passing legislation, the president is signing the bills into law, and the White House is announcing which parts of the law the president has the power to ignore whenever he decides he should.
Under normal circumstances (i.e. when the rule of law matters), the president has two choices when a bill reaches his desk: he can sign it if he likes it, or veto it if he doesn’t. Bush is going for Door #3, reshuffling the constitutional deck. No wonder he doesn’t feel the need to veto anything — Addington and Cheney have convinced the president he has the power of more than one branch of government.
Also keep in mind, conservatives who take the Constitution seriously don’t buy into the White House’s thinking. Arlen Specter has raised serious concerns about Bush’s signing statements, and 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.”
Bush is setting a radical, and fairly dangerous, precedent here. It’s far more serious a question than whether the FBI can raid a congressman’s office with a court order. Hastert, Boehner & Co. are suddenly worried about the separation of powers? Great. Let them explain what they plan to do about the fact that Bush has said, over 750 times, that he can ignore parts of laws he doesn’t like.