Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - 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."

Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power — from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_...ning_statements

[Artegal 1]

Definitely not a defender of the our Constitutional Rights. I guess in Bush's mind they are Constitutional Privileges that we need do without at his behest--or whatever whim.

[Fuzzness 2]

this is sounding more and more like a totalitarian govt

[Chuckles 0]

Bush Suxors

[Melo 1]

Jeeeeeeeeeez

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I was thinking we would hear from some Bush defenders here who would try explain why this is really a good thing.....

So.......................... ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its the usual story - put party first. Doing what's legal (and what's moral), comes further down the list.

[Artegal 1]

I was thinking we would hear from some Bush defenders here who would try explain why this is really a good thing.....

So.......................... ?

How can anyone defend the wholesale disregard for the fabric of our nation--what makes us Americans, and leaders of the freeworld. At the end of his 8 years of tyranny I guess all the shinanigans etc, will kind of put the 8 years of Clinton goings on in perspective. Outside of the #######-gate, Remember how everyone got so upset over some FBI files being in Ms. Clinton's closet--and now look at how the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc are investigating all of us with or without court oversight--and the President just inks out the congressional oversight and letter of the law through interpretation--okay let me use that next time I am pulled over for speeding or something--

officer I interpreted the law to not apply to me in situations where I am running late for an appointment--here is my signatured statement to that effect.

[peejay 327]

I was thinking we would hear from some Bush defenders here who would try explain why this is really a good thing.....

So.......................... ?

I'm not a Bush defender...and the only good I see is that we have a functional government made up of 3 branches that can hold legislative hearings and a functional court system that can rule on Constitutional law. Hardly a totalitarian regime. People may not agree, but there are mechanisms in place to challenge and set precedent for future administrations.

It is interesting to note that this is not a partisan issue. Senator Spector is a Republican. But, then again, Bush is a lame duck President. He will be gone in 2008 and another elected President will take his place.

Our country will survive Bush.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was thinking we would hear from some Bush defenders here who would try explain why this is really a good thing.....

So.......................... ?

I'm not a Bush defender...and the only good I see is that we have a functional government made up of 3 branches that can hold legislative hearings and a functional court system that can rule on Constitutional law. Hardly a totalitarian regime. People may not agree, but there are mechanisms in place to challenge and set precedent for future administrations.

It is interesting to note that this is not a partisan issue. Senator Spector is a Republican. But, then again, Bush is a lame duck President. He will be gone in 2008 and another elected President will take his place.

Our country will survive Bush.

But will it survive the damage done to the country? Through this administration the executive has consolidated power in one branch of government to the detriment of those other branches designed to check abuses. The problem is not so much the president, but what people as a whole have been willing to give up and how that might be used in the future by a candidate with even less scruples.

You don't become a totalitarian regime overnight - but certainly I would say that at the moment we're moving in a less than favourable direction.

[almaty 19]

bush is the worst president ....i can recall..worse than ford..a chopf##k of the highest caliber

Edited June 27, 2006 by almaty2004

[incanada1234 0]

Its the usual story - put party first. Doing what's legal (and what's moral), comes further down the list.

You're talking about democrats obviously.

[G. Dubya 0]

bush is the worst president ....i can recall..worse than ford..a chopf##k of the highest caliber

How rude of you, citizen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its the usual story - put party first. Doing what's legal (and what's moral), comes further down the list.

You're talking about democrats obviously.

I think the description applies to most politicians. Though as the party in power, with the most influence its right that the Reps take their share of criticism for their use/abuse of it. That's not to say the other party is significantly better.

At some point you have to put aside party politics and ask "is what's being done actually doing good for the country, or is it simply serving the interests of a select few".

[peejay 327]

Its the usual story - put party first. Doing what's legal (and what's moral), comes further down the list.

You're talking about democrats obviously.

I think the description applies to most politicians. Though as the party in power, with the most influence its right that the Reps take their share of criticism for their use/abuse of it. That's not to say the other party is significantly better.

At some point you have to put aside party politics and ask "is what's being done actually doing good for the country, or is it simply serving the interests of a select few".

Your interpretation, my interpretation, or anyone elses' interpretation of what is best for the country may be completely 180 degrees apart. Party politics, ego, and self interest makes it even worst.

One of the worst things I see in the broader world of politics is the role of money. The politicians want the vote of the common citizen on election day, but take outside money the other 364 days of the year. So the electorate is not so important most of the time. Ditto for lame duck Presidents (he doesn't have to worry about re-election).

The crux of what this original post is about is "power". It is about who has it and what they can do with it according to "their" interpretation of what is good for the country. It is difficult to say whether Senator Spector is more interested in the country or if he is more concerned with the perceived loss of his (and Congress') power. Ditto for the President's motives. Is it a grab for power or something that he perceives is in the best interests of the country?

Money and power is what makes present day American politics. That is why I believe that campaign reform, ethics reform, and functioning balance of power between the 3 branches of government can go a long way toward ensuring that decisions are first and foremost in the best interests of country as a whole.

It is easier said than done though.