Conyers: A Closer Look at Presidential Signing Statements

[cal04]

The Boston Globe had a Sunday article on presidential signing statements that got a lot of coverage over at firedoglake.

I was very much opposed to the president unilaterally deciding which elements of the Patriot Act he thought were worth obeying. Congresswoman Jane Harman and I sent a letter (pdf) to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez asking for clarification about the Patriot Act signing statement and have yet to receive a response. The head of President Reagan's Office of Legal Counsel shoots down the Bush Administration's claim that they are only following in the footsteps of past presidents:

"Following a model of restraint, (the Reagan-era Office of Legal Counsel) took it seriously that we were to construe statutes to avoid constitutional problems, not to invent them," said Kmiec, who is now a Pepperdine University law professor.

By contrast, Bush has used the signing statements to waive his obligation to follow the new laws. In addition to the torture ban and oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, the laws Bush has claimed the authority to disobey include restrictions against US troops engaging in combat in Colombia, whistle-blower protections for government employees, and safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research.

Constitutional Law scholars also weigh in on the administration's "interpretation" of whether they can ignore laws passed by Congress:

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."

Laurence Tribe , a prominent liberal at Harvard Law School, said: "Nothing in the text and structure of the Constitution, or Supreme Court precedents, supports the Bush-Cheney assertion that Congress cannot limit or direct what government officials may or must do."
If you haven't had a chance to review this article, it is well worth the read as it also provides some insight into the internal deliberations of the Bush White House and how Cheney's unitary executive doctrine pervades every level of the administration.

pdf letter
http://www.conyersblog.us/

links
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/28/cheney_aide_is_screening_legislation/?page=1

firedoglake
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/28/a-constitutional-crisis-of-cheneys-making/

[wiggs]

1. Thank you congressman conyers. Now who is going to take the next step?

Who is going to take the administration to court to get a ruling? Who is going to talk every week in the press about these illegal and unconstitutional signing statements? The statements sound really bad and paint the administration in a bad light...lots of fodder there for the opposition party.

This seems to be a very fundamental and serious issue that needs immediate attention.

[alfredo]

2. K&R

I think cheney figured this is the best way to install an autocratic government. He's got less than a year to get the job done. The time between the election and the swearing in of a new congress could be very perilous for our constitution. If the Dems gain control of one or both houses, Cheney will push hard to consolidate power into a unitary president.

[_testify_]

4. and by 2008, the presidential elections will have been

postponed or cancelled. There's no way this 8 year power-grab will willingly turn the reigns over to a Democrat now. Why consolidate so much power, only to see it in the hands of your enemies?

[alfredo]

5. My hope is they will be so discredited, so poisonous they

will not have the ability to do shit like stopping the elections.

[tridim]

6. Let them try.. It'll prove definitively that the people will not...

stand for it. If we don't have a showdown and the Dems take over congress and the presidency, they'll just go into hiding like they did during 6 years of Clinton. They'll be back in 2016 with a refined plan to destroy America.

[bleever]

3. K&R.

"Nothing in the text and structure of the Constitution, or Supreme Court precedents, supports the Bush-Cheney assertion that Congress cannot limit or direct what government officials may or must do."