home

Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements


The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning began examining President Bush's use of signing statements. The ACLU says (press release received by e-mail, but will be up on their site shortly):

"President Bush needs a lesson in Civics 101," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The executive is supposed to enforce the laws Congress passes, and respect the separation of powers that define our country. But in this president's mind, he is above the law. His lack of respect for the rule of law and his abuse of power are evident, and we hope that today's hearing will highlight this administration's disregard for the law."

President Bush's signing statements have in most cases said that he will refuse to enforce part of a law because it conflicts with his extraordinary claims of presidential powers. The statements have covered numerous issues, including a congressional ban on the use of torture, affirmative action rules, protection for the integrity of scientific research and whistleblower protections. Such steps, the ACLU noted, defy the constitutional powers of Congress, and undermine the system of checks and balances.

Article II of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The ACLU observed that President Bush has yet to veto a single bill passed by Congress.

"He doesn't have to use a veto," said Fredrickson. "If Congress passes a law the president dislikes, he simply states that he has no intention of executing the law as written. The Constitution and our laws don't provide for the president to choose which provisions of laws passed by Congress he will enforce."

Additionally, the president's authorization of warrantless surveillance of Americans by the National Security Agency violates the unequivocal restrictions on domestic spying outlined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The ACLU said that the NSA spying reflects the administration's determination to ignore the rule of law and the Constitution.

"As with so many other powers, President Bush has perverted the use of signing statements," said Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy. "President Bush continues to thumb his nose at Congress and the Constitution. This is simply another example of his hostility to the rule of law and to a federal government of limited powers."

As TChris reported here, the ABA also is investigating the President's use of signing statments. As one judge on the ABA Task Force put it:

"If Congress passes a law telling the people in the bureaucracy that `this is what you should do,' and the president signs it but attaches a statement saying `I don't want you to do it,' how is that going to affect the motivation of the bureaucracy?" she said.

More here and here.

< Senate Begins Debate on Flag Burning Amendment | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#1)
    by nolo on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    I'm glad to see the Senate's finally addressing a serious issue.

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:11:12 AM EST
    In a strongly worded headline that has appeared across a variety of news websites, the Associated Press has formally accused President Bush of ignoring laws he signs. The AP headline at ABC News? "Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress." At AOL? "Bush Ignores Laws He Signs, Vexing Congress." And Yahoo? "Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress."
    LINK This is the way it should be phrased

    Well, the president is certainly not above the law. But OTOH, laws are not above the constitution. No law can constrain either the judicial or the executive from their constitutionally granted powers and responsibilities.

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#4)
    by Punchy on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    It's Article II. It's ALL Article II. It gives him the right to do anything and everything. Omnipotent.

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    I fail to see the controversy According to the Constitution, the President can sign a bill, return it, or do nothing (in that instance it would become law). If the President signs the bill, it is law no matter his interpretation. A law is still going to be interpreted by the Courts in the same manner, plain language;constitutionality;legislativehistory, if any. A signing statement has no legal effect. This seems to be an argument more about process than substance or even procedure

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    I fail to see the controversy
    bush signs laws, and then issues a signing statement saying he doesn't have to obey those laws if he doesn't want to. And then he doesn't obey the laws. That's the controversy. We still torture in gitmo, the pentagon refuses to stop abusive practices and won't even include them in it's interrogation manual. And they can do so because king george told them they could no matter what the law says. king george is holding himself above the law, and claims he can do so because the constitution gave him unlimited authority. That's not just controversy, that's treason. Yet, since the rethugs are in charge of the judiciary, exec and congress he gets a pass.

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:57:39 PM EST
    Yet, since the rethugs are in charge of the judiciary, exec and congress he gets a pass.
    As far as Republicans are concerned, and Republican Senators in particular, the dangerous thing here is that if Bush can do this, then a precedent is set and we have a successful power grab from the legislative to the executive branch. All members of Congress should be against it for that reason, no matter whether the political party of the president attempting it. Although it's nice to see some attention paid to the issue, Specter has a history of putting up timid resistance and then caving quickly. This is probably more bluff and bluster on his part.

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    It is better to have a presedent, Bush or whoever, state up front there take on a law as opposed to a presedent that signs a bill with no statemnet who has been advised or believes a loophole exists. In the latter circumstance time can pass before anyone realizes that the executive has ignored, violated, or failed to implement a law

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    Actually it's muuuch better to have a president who follows the laws like everyone else. I guess that's asking too much these days, though.

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#10)
    by selise on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    does anyone know if there is any transcript, audio or video of today's hearing? i didn't see it on cspan and i really wanted to watch it.

    Re: Senate Hearing on Bush's Signing Statements (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    As far as Republicans are concerned, and Republican Senators in particular, the dangerous thing here is that if Bush can do this, then a precedent is set and we have a successful power grab from the legislative to the executive branch.
    If that was true why wouldn't rethugs be doing anything about it?