Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power

[seafan]

Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power

By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Fri, Jan. 06, 2006

WASHINGTON - President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as he signed it into law.
Acting from the seclusion of his Texas ranch at the start of New Year's weekend, Bush said he would interpret the new law in keeping with his expansive view of presidential power. He did it by issuing a bill-signing statement - a little-noticed device that has become a favorite tool of presidential power in the Bush White House.

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues.

"It's nothing short of breath-taking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and pre-empted the judiciary."

snip

"They don't like some of the things Congress has done so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13568438.htm


This madman truly intends to annihilate our country.

[proud patriot]

1. Bush is a Smarmy Bastard

x(

[madokie]

31. Your sig line would be a good bumper sticker

I guess us old hippies are gonna' have to do it again, we stopped one war and ran off another tyrant, nixon. I'm convinced it will take getting out in the street to get a handle on this.

[aquart]

2. It ain't ONE madman. It's a cabal.

And annihilation might be preferable to what is going to happen to us.

[Peter Frank]

23. It's a cabal wrapped in an oligarchy, wrapped in a flag... n/t

[DELUSIONAL]

3. Doubtful that "he" is reading these bills

His reading comprehension is poor and he can't understand the legal mumbo jumbo used in bills.

So he has a staff of crooks finding ways to sleaze past any law the congress passes.

Mort than likely this is the brain child of Rove & Cheney etc.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Are these bill written in "Texan"?

:silly: "...just so long as I am the Dictator".

[Erika]

4. McCain, Warner, Graham are outraged at his arrogance

W wants a complete dictatorship with no checks and balances. He is dismantling our constitution and the few sheeple call him a leader for doing so.

[rucky]

5. Why is the GOP House going along with this

aren't they power hungry, too?

I guess not as much as they are money hungry.

[Kagemusha]

6. The President has the right of free speech too but...

The courts have never actually accepted that anything the President says like this has EVEN THE SLIGHTEST EFFECT on the actual validity of the law. Alito may want to change that. Moreover, Bush is actually acting on his signing statements rather than just making assertions. The fact he follows through on a signing statement does not make his interpretation law - a fact he is only belatedly being reminded of by the courts.

[seafan]

7. Cheney infuriated since prez powers reduced post Watergate.

snip

The roots of Bush's approach go back to the Ford administration, when Dick Cheney, then serving as White House chief of staff, chafed at legislative limits placed on the executive branch in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and other abuses of power by President Nixon. Now the vice president and his top aide, David Addington, are taking the lead in trying to tip the balance of power away from Congress and back to the president.

They may soon have an ally on the Supreme Court. As a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote a 1986 memo outlining plans for expanded use of presidential signing statements.
Although Alito told his bosses that the aggressive use of assertive signing statements "would increase the power of the executive to shape the law," he acknowledged doubts about their legal significance.

Reagan adopted the strategy and used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, according to Kelley's tally. President George H.W. Bush challenged 146 laws; President Clinton challenged 105. The current president has lodged more than 500 challenges so far.

snip

In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush's use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

snip

[Kagemusha]

9. It's not limiting presidential power. It's expanding the law.

Pity people can't tell the difference... as if a nation of laws must never pass any and limit itself to the constitution without the benefit of legislation.

[Lasher]

8. I this legal?

Can a president legally use a signing statement as a line-item veto? It seems to me that if he didn't like the anti-torture provision, for example, his only recourse should have been to veto the entire bill and send it back to Congress.

[Kagemusha]

10. Absolutely not, he has no such power.

And no President ever, ever did.

Not even prior to the accursed 70's. (tongue in cheek)

[Lasher]

11. I just read the whole article

You're right, signing statements have no legal or constitutional authority. This part of the article is chilling:

In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush's use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

If he did indeed go on to ignore the notification requirement, he broke the law. This seems to be part of trend by this administration of routinely breaking the law. It's true, he doesn't think the law applies to him! He is drunk with power, secure in the knowledge that the repuke-controlled congress will do nothing to challenge him.

We must win control of the Senate and/or the House this year.

[Peter Frank]

21. This thread needs to be pinned... n/t

[justabob]

12. Have these 'signing statements' always been around?

I mean, is this some power that they granted for themselves recently, or have presidents always used them? I have never heard of them before and I pay attention pretty well.

[justabob]

13. Never mind... I see the answers nt

[yurbud]

14. even if Dems don't impeach, they can use power of the purse to cut off

his allowance.

[Peter Frank]

22. How can Dems cut off funds w/o control of either house of Congress?...n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

25. They need to try--loudly and strongly.

The best arguement for voting Democratic in 2006 for moderates will be to use the Democrats punish the republicans and prevent the Bush adminstration from doing any more harm.

The Democrats must be an opposition party.

[yurbud]

36. when and if they get it

[Metta]

15. Attempting to legitimize their tyranny.

And destabilize their opposition.

[Peter Frank]

16. Recommended & suggest others recommend this thread because...

...it appears that the "presidential signing statement" is the rubric under which Bush has been systematically unraveling the fabric of our government.

From torture to eavesdropping, to who knows what -- Bush reserves the right to trump any and all legislation that gets in his way by using this tool.

Here's the last part of the posted article:

<snip>Lawmakers from both parties have questioned Bush's assertion of his wartime authority.

"If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

"The Constitution says that if the president doesn't like it (a bill), he can veto it. And we have an opportunity to override the veto," Kennedy noted.

Some members of Congress from both parties also question the legal authority of presidential signing statements.

"He can say whatever he likes, I don't know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush's use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds. Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13568438.htm

[Ouabache]

17. We need a constitutional amendment to eliminate signing statements

then NO president can follow this and it might make his signing statement invalid(?)

Congress can make it very clear with an amendment to the constitution, passed then by 2/3 of the states that the president can't ignore the laws they pass. It would make it clear to the courts too that once the congress passes a law this amendment invalidates signing statements. Of course they could just impeach him for not enforcing the laws they pass too. If Congress gets it together they have the ultimate power, but of course the Bush straregy on all fronts is to divide and conquer which they are doing in this instance too as long as 2/3 of the Congress won't stand up for their duty.

[Peter Frank]

18. Well said, and very correct...

Short of a Constitutional Amendment -- any president could bypass any restriction with a signing statement.

[glitch]

35. They already have no validity -- but we can use them when we impeach

as evidence.

[Peter Frank]

19. Excellent Catch seafan...

I'll sign a statement saying so.

[Peter Frank]

20. .

[malaise]

24. Sadly both the judiciary and the legislature

have allowed him to do this. Afterall the judiciary put him in power in 2000

[converted_democrat]

26. Unfuckingreal. Some days, I'm not even sure if this is America anymore.n/t

[salin]

27. The constitutional route for overriding congressional bills is VETO

what bush is doing is in essence declaring that congress has no power (according to him) to write law, and that even if he signs the law it isn't binding to Bush. So what is the point of congress? Almost like this is a form of the old dictators just calling to disband legislatures.

[LizW]

32. Exactly

What is really galling is that the anti-torture law passed by a veto-proof majority in both houses. So if Bush had done what the Constitution allows and vetoed, it would have passed again over his veto. He knew that, so he didn't veto, he just announced that the law didn't apply to him. A staggering usurpation of Congressional power.

[salin]

34. Here is where it gets interesting... OverReach

because of the publicity on this issue - his overreach is reported... with the following stories of how often he has done this. The public had NO idea. Then in context of the story leaked late last month about the extra-legal program of NSA fisa-less domestic spying... plays really bad. Harder and harder for folks to stand behind this admin unless they are bushbot loyalists.

[robbedvoter]

28. Paul Krugman noticed and wrote about it - over and over

We noticed - and media too probably - but carefully covered it.
Wasn't "little noticed" - but "enabled"

[bear425]

29. Impeachment is too good for him. n/t

[texpatriot2004]

30. Indeed! The EVIL Bastard is a LIAR, a Thief, a Cheat, and a

Treasonous mongrel.

[Peter Frank]

37. .

[Peter Frank]

38. Kick...

:kick:

[earth mom]

39. Unbelievable actions from a jerk who wasn't even elected in the 1st place!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Peter Frank]

41. The crap he's doing now...

...is the same kind of crap he pulled to get in office. It's been a running theme of dirty politics from the get go.

[Wilms]

40. .