So Bush popped off another one of his "signing statements" yesterday [View All]

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Bush issued another of his controversial signing statements yesterday, after the public ceremony for the pension bill.

Here's the text :

"Today I have signed into law H.R. 4 , the 'Pension Protection Act of 2006.' . . .

"The executive branch shall construe sections 221(a) and 1632(b)(1) of the Act, which call for the submission of legislative recommendations to the Congress, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient. . . .

"Section 1634(e) purports to require the United States Trade Representative to submit to congressional committees the contents of the negotiating positions of the United States and foreign countries in certain international trade negotiations. The executive branch shall construe section 1634(e) in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs including negotiations with foreign countries, supervise the unitary executive branch, and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

So does that mean Bush won't comply with the law? Or he'll do it, but with the stipulation that it's voluntary? And if he doesn't intend to follow the law, why didn't he just veto it?

Those are questions you might well expect the press to ask, especially since the White House actually e-mailed the statement to reporters yesterday afternoon.

But alas, no. There is not a single mention, or question, about the statement in today's coverage, as far as I could tell.