What's A Law or 750 Between Friends?

I've blogged before about the dangers of the Unitary Executive Theory and the idea that the President can engage in "Executive Activism(1)" by issuing so-called “signing statements” with bills as he signs them into law.

The Constitution clearly gives the power to enact laws to the Legislative Branch of government (aka the Congress). The President's approval and signature is one of the important checks and balances we have (as are the Congressional override of a veto and the Judicial review of a challenged law), but they do not grant to him the power to alter those laws or make them say other than what the Congress intends.

And we all know about the few cases that have gotten lots of coverage, such as Bush asserting in his signing statement that the Congressionally passed anti-torture law doesn't apply to him. But apparently (at least according to this article) he has actually done so 750 times during his Presidency thus far.

And as if the sheer scope of it isn't bad enough, by doing this the way he has, President Bush has found a way to circumvent the veto override by Congress, which in itself is blatantly unconstitutional. Here's how: In a normal Administration, if a President does not agree with all or part of a law crossing his desk, he vetoes that bill. Indeed, through the United State's history up through President Clinton, Presidents have vetoed 2550 bills and have been overridden 106 times. Of those 2550 vetoes, 1484 were explicit (sent back vetoed) and 1066 were so-called "pocket vetoes" (in which the President doesn't send the bill back, he just doesn't sign it within his 10 day window, a Presidential version of the better-known Congressional trick of not confirming Presidential nominees to various positions without explicitly voting them down).

So in those 2550 vetoes (and certainly in the 1484 explicit vetoes), the Congress had the ability to override the veto. Even in the pocket vetoes, the Congress had the power to resubmit the law. If the Congress felt strongly enough about a bill, it became law, binding on everyone (INCLUDING the President) until and unless successfully challenged up to the Supreme Court.

Not so with President Bush. He has yet to veto a single bill. Instead, by simply altering the meaning of bills through the use of “Signing Statements”, President Bush has taken away the Congressional power (Constitutionally mandated) to override him when they disagree with his opinion of their bill.

Prior to George W. Bush, the last President who didn't issue a single veto was James Garfield, elected in 1881, but he can be forgiven this oversight because he was shot and killed less than 9 months into his first term. Prior to HIM you have to go back to Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) to find a full-term President who vetoed no bills.

To give you an idea of how often the veto has been used recently, here are the veto counts for each President in office during my lifetime (total plus regular/pocket breakdown): Johnson 30 (16/14). Nixon 43 (26/17). Ford 66 (48/18). Carter 31 (13/18). Reagan 78 (39/39). G.H.W. Bush 44 (29/15). Clinton 37 (36/1). That's an average of almost 9 vetoes per year.

Bush has asserted that he can ignore all or part of 750 bills that have been signed into law under his terms thus far. And he has the nerve to rail against activist JUDGES.

(All stats come from this report to Congress.)

Liam.

(1) The Right Wing talking point has been to define the term “Judicial Activism” as Judges "making law from the bench" and "usurping the Congressional jaw-making power", then it is just as clearly "Executive Activism" when the President (Executive Branch) does the same.