The "razor wire" of democratic lawU.S. President George W Bush is famous for not using his power of veto on new legislation passed by the American Congress. Though this is often glibly interpreted by his supporters as proof of his non-interference with the running of government, the truth is rather more sinister.
Rather than using the power of veto to openly oppose new legislation, Bush has issued “signing statements” on more than 750 new laws since taking office in 2001. Signing statements have been used by American presidents to add their own thoughts to the legislation when they don’t feel inclined to veto. However, Bush has used signing statements in such a fashion that effectively nullifies legislation that he disagrees with – and he has done so on a wide swath of legislation. Bush has in an underhand manner vastly expanded the boundaries of “executive power” taking both the powers law maker and the interpretation of law. To this end, Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous presidents; in fact, more than many combined.
Particularly obscene examples of his signing statements (from The Boston Globe):
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush’s signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush’s signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information “prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay.”
Bush’s signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush’s signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law “as advisory in nature.”
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush’s signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration’s lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush’s signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research “without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department.”
Bush’s signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so “the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education.”
The pattern of Bush’s subversion of legislation is clear and distinct. The security agencies and the military are given leave of their obligations of disclosure to Congress (i.e., the elected representative of the people) on Bush’s will – i.e., formation of a secret police. Bush’s statement that his government “did not torture” has an unuttered proviso of “unless directed by me” and then no one can report it afterwards. Time and time again, independence and transparency are stripped away with power directed towards the presidency.
Source article:
The Boston Globe: Examples of the president’s signing statements
3 comments:
From what I know of this practice, "signing statements", Dubyah Bush is not the first President to have engaged in the practice. He is just the first to use it so broadly.
My guess is that eventually the practice is going to end up being tested in the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court has previously always protected "seperation of powers" I am hoping it will rule against this practice.
Yes, previous presidents have used signing statements. Bush, however, is the only president to have used so many, and to have used them in such a manner as to essentially render the legislation mute.
For example:
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush’s signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law “as advisory in nature.”
In such a circumstance where Bush completely disagrees with the legislation, I believe that he has a responsibility to openly veto the bill.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I agree.
And even if Congress overrides the veto the Executive Branch still has the right to take the issue up with the courts. Until the matter is settled by the courts, the Executive Branch might even be OK in disagreeing and acting otherwise while the matter is actively disputed.
However the "signing statements" are nothing more then an attempt by the Executive Branch to assert the right to a "super" line item veto. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the line item veto, which was agreed to by both the Legislative and Executive Branches, is unconstitutional.
My own viewpoint is that the Legislative Branch should ask the Supreme Court to rule on this matter posthaste.
Post a Comment