Is Bush Violating the Law? By Dan Froomkin

[Demeter]

Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, February 1, 2007; 12:58 PM



What do President Bush's "signing statements" really signify? When the president asserts his right to ignore legislation passed by Congress --- such as the ban on torture --- is he then acting on that assertion? Or is it just harmless ideological bluster?

When the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage first wrote about Bush's use of these stealthy statements more than a year ago, neither the Washington press corps nor the Republican-controlled Congress expressed any enthusiasm about getting to the bottom of this important Constitutional riddle.

But elections do have consequences.

And as Savage writes in today's Boston Globe: "The new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said yesterday that he is launching an aggressive investigation into whether the Bush administration has violated any of the laws it claimed a right to ignore in presidential 'signing statements.'

"Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office. But administration officials insist that Bush's signing statements merely question the laws' constitutionality, and do not necessarily mean that the president also authorized his subordinates to violate them.

"Conyers said the president has no power 'to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with Congress and signed.' . . .

"The Michigan Democrat made his remarks at the committee's first oversight hearing since Democrats took control of Congress, which Conyers devoted to signing statements. He called the hearing a kickoff to his plans to use the coming session to probe the administration's 'growing abuse of power.'"

"Here is the prepared text of Conyers's opening statement: "I intend to ask the Administration to identify each and every statutory provision they have not agreed with in signing statements, and to specify precisely what they have done as a result. For example, if the President claims he is exempt from the McCain Amendment ban on torture, I want to know whether and where he has permitted it. And we want to know what has he done to carry out his claims to be exempt from many other laws, such as oversight and reporting requirements under the PATRIOT Act, numerous affirmative action obligations, and the requirement that government obtain a search warrant before opening the mail of American citizens.

"I am also going to ask my staff, along with Ranking Member Smith's staff, to meet with the Department of Justice and the White House so we can get to the bottom of this matter, and to be blunt, we are not going to take no for an answer. We are a co-equal branch of government, and if our system of checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative that we understand how the Executive Branch is enforcing -- or ignoring -- the bills that are signed into law."

[YDogg]

1. I love me some Dan Froomkin

[Benhurst]

2. Great title. Right up there with "Is The Pope Catholic?" and "Do Bears Shit in the Woods?"

Very good article. Recommended #5

[unblock]

3. my considered legal opinion is that signing statements do NOT violate the law, in and of themselves

i think they are legally meaningless, the president does not have the power to edit bills as he signs them into law.

similarly, i don't have the personal power to fire shrub, so if i call the white house and say, in my best donald trump, "you're fired!" it simply has no legal meaning.

what IS illegal is ACTING contrary to the laws that were actually signed, in which case the signing statement is NOT a valid defense for such actions.


disclaimer: i'm not a lawyer.

[lligrd]

5. That Is Exactly My Take On It Too

I always thought signing statements were used to clarify why a President signed the bill (basically an excuse for signing something he doesn't want people to think he agreed with). Once the bill is signed, the bill becomes law and the signing statement is meaningless. I am not a lawyer either but I am quite confident that our take on it is right. The Supreme Courts Justices chosen by the neocons will probably have a different understanding though.

[papau]

6. Allito and the others pushed USSC giving equal weight to "signing statements" as they give

to Congressional write-ups when the USSC interprets a law.

Like Scalia's "original meaning" bullshit - the "not making law from the bench in order to get a result" RW GOP will pull in anything and claim they must respect it if it supports the decision they want to make. So Original intent can depend on news media/ and other really good thinkers' commentary at the time, and now current law can ignore Congress, per the USSC, and be what the GOP President says it is.

[Morgana LaFey]

4. Got a link for that -- so I can pass it along to others? Thanks. nt