Lawyers Challenge Bush on signing statements
by MICKEY EDWARDS
The Nation
[from the July 31, 2006 issue]
For millions of Americans, liberal and conservative, the battles over Bush Administration policies, from the war in Iraq to the shape of the federal tax code, revolve around questions of political ideology or partisan preferences. For many others, the central issue is not the Administration's policies but its competence. For the American Bar Association, and for some other organizations as well, including the Washington-based Constitution Project, the matter is much simpler: It's a question of legality.
It was this concern--whether or not the President of the United States was involved in a systematic attempt to evade the law--that prompted both the ABA and the Constitution Project to appoint special bipartisan task forces (I'm a member of both) to look into the extraordinary ways in which the President has turned to the use of presidential signing statements not only to signal his disagreement with Congressional actions but to make clear his intent to disregard them.
Signing statements are not new; in recent history Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton also used them. Laws often end up in court, where federal judges may examine their constitutionality or attempt to resolve ambiguities as to intent. Historically, courts have looked to legislative language and Congressional debate to unravel such uncertainties; by issuing their own statements of concern or interpretation while signing a bill into law, Presidents attempt to inject their views into the judicial decision-making process. As President Clinton once argued, Presidents are not irrelevant, and it is not surprising that they would want to have their perspectives considered.
But there are at least two causes for concern about the way George W. Bush has used this presidential tool. One is the unprecedented frequency with which he has issued such statements; in less than six years he has issued more signing statements (over 750 by some estimates) than all other Presidents in history combined. This is a President who routinely challenges the decisions even of a Congress dominated by his own party.
But more worrisome is the way he uses such statements. Observers have noted with some surprise that a President who often seems preternaturally combative has nonetheless acquiesced routinely to a Congress with which he often clearly disagrees. This perception of a strangely compliant President was fed by the seemingly inexplicable fact that Bush had not issued a single veto in all the years of his presidency. It turns out that in this particular case, conspiracy theorists may have a point: The President had chosen not to veto legislation with which he disagreed--thus giving Congress a chance to override his veto--but simply to assert his right to ignore the law, whether a domestic issue or a prohibition against torturing prisoners of war. Coupled with his insistence on a "unitary executive"--the idea that Congress cannot, by law, tell an executive branch agency what it may or may not do--Bush's signing statements amount to more than an expression of opinion designed to influence the courts; they are a de facto instruction to federal agencies to disregard Congressional mandate.
(The rest is here.)
The Nation
[from the July 31, 2006 issue]
For millions of Americans, liberal and conservative, the battles over Bush Administration policies, from the war in Iraq to the shape of the federal tax code, revolve around questions of political ideology or partisan preferences. For many others, the central issue is not the Administration's policies but its competence. For the American Bar Association, and for some other organizations as well, including the Washington-based Constitution Project, the matter is much simpler: It's a question of legality.
It was this concern--whether or not the President of the United States was involved in a systematic attempt to evade the law--that prompted both the ABA and the Constitution Project to appoint special bipartisan task forces (I'm a member of both) to look into the extraordinary ways in which the President has turned to the use of presidential signing statements not only to signal his disagreement with Congressional actions but to make clear his intent to disregard them.
Signing statements are not new; in recent history Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton also used them. Laws often end up in court, where federal judges may examine their constitutionality or attempt to resolve ambiguities as to intent. Historically, courts have looked to legislative language and Congressional debate to unravel such uncertainties; by issuing their own statements of concern or interpretation while signing a bill into law, Presidents attempt to inject their views into the judicial decision-making process. As President Clinton once argued, Presidents are not irrelevant, and it is not surprising that they would want to have their perspectives considered.
But there are at least two causes for concern about the way George W. Bush has used this presidential tool. One is the unprecedented frequency with which he has issued such statements; in less than six years he has issued more signing statements (over 750 by some estimates) than all other Presidents in history combined. This is a President who routinely challenges the decisions even of a Congress dominated by his own party.
But more worrisome is the way he uses such statements. Observers have noted with some surprise that a President who often seems preternaturally combative has nonetheless acquiesced routinely to a Congress with which he often clearly disagrees. This perception of a strangely compliant President was fed by the seemingly inexplicable fact that Bush had not issued a single veto in all the years of his presidency. It turns out that in this particular case, conspiracy theorists may have a point: The President had chosen not to veto legislation with which he disagreed--thus giving Congress a chance to override his veto--but simply to assert his right to ignore the law, whether a domestic issue or a prohibition against torturing prisoners of war. Coupled with his insistence on a "unitary executive"--the idea that Congress cannot, by law, tell an executive branch agency what it may or may not do--Bush's signing statements amount to more than an expression of opinion designed to influence the courts; they are a de facto instruction to federal agencies to disregard Congressional mandate.
(The rest is here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home