7.24.06 - Bush Breaking the Rules?
I was browsing today's headlines on Comcast.net and came across an article concerning the constitutionality of certain "exceptions" Bush is making to laws he signs. Apparently our dear darling President has decided that he can add exceptions to laws after he has signed them into law. What's up with that?
Bush's administration has decided to call these little law-breaking additions "bill-signing statements." These allow Bush to "revise, interpret, or disregard" matters dealing with national security or the constitution.
These bill-signing statements are legal; they have been used by other presidents. However, Bush has used these "exceptions" over 800 times. All the other presidents combined have only used them about 600 times. Some might say Bush has "overused" his presidential freedoms.
But maybe desperate times call for desperate measures.
Think about it.
http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/07/24/440661.html&cvqh=itn_lawyersbush
-Night
I was browsing today's headlines on Comcast.net and came across an article concerning the constitutionality of certain "exceptions" Bush is making to laws he signs. Apparently our dear darling President has decided that he can add exceptions to laws after he has signed them into law. What's up with that?
Bush's administration has decided to call these little law-breaking additions "bill-signing statements." These allow Bush to "revise, interpret, or disregard" matters dealing with national security or the constitution.
These bill-signing statements are legal; they have been used by other presidents. However, Bush has used these "exceptions" over 800 times. All the other presidents combined have only used them about 600 times. Some might say Bush has "overused" his presidential freedoms.
But maybe desperate times call for desperate measures.
Think about it.
http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/07/24/440661.html&cvqh=itn_lawyersbush
-Night
posted by night at 5:39 PM
1 Comments:
I'm not all that clear about the past use or legal nature of signing statements, but it's fairly clear that the way Bush is using them is illegal.
As the ABA points out, it is incumbent on the President to veto a bill that is unconstitutional, not issue a signing statement and ignore it.
There's a pesky thing for Bush called the Presidential oath of office:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Bush has promised to do this, twice now. Not only is failing to veto faulty legislation a violation of the President's Constitutional duties, but so is circumventing the Constitutional role of Congress. And these actions have quite obviously been willful and frequently deceitful. It's obvious the President has been acting WAY outside the scope of US law and his Constitutional responsibilities.
But, frankly, I don't know that I mind the President's behavior, as it provides ample opportunity to delegitimatize his Presidency. I have faith that even the most conservative of Supreme Courts, when faced with two conflicting pieces of policy... a law passed by Congress or a Presidential signing statement... will have to opt for the one that was passed through a Constitutional process. And, of course, if impeachment comes up, it provides ample ammunition.
Though I fear that when all the ways that Bush has screwed US law and the Constitution are compiled, it will make the Starr Report look like a children's book by comparison.
Post a Comment
<< Home