More Signing Statements

Here is an article from the New York Times from the past week.

It tells of a recent pair of bills President Bush signed into law, but then "issued a so-called signing statement in which he instructed the executive branch to view parts of each as unconstitutional constraints on presidential power.".

This continues to be a usurpation of both Legislative and Judicial powers. The Executive Branch executes the laws. Period. They do not determine what is or is not constitutional, that's the job of the judiciary. And they do not have a line item veto.

This signing statement business has to go. Using it as former Presidents have, to clarify their understanding of a particularly ambiguously worded bit of legalese is reasonable. Using them in lieu of a veto, as a line-item veto (which has itself been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), and not subject to an override vote by the Congress (which is also an unconstitutional power grab) shows just how far Bush believes his power reaches, and no one is calling him on it.

One bill was a military authorization act, and President Bush's signing statement attempts to negate parts that "forbid the money from being used to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" and "required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there."

Remember when they told us that the war wouldn't cost us very much, because Iraqi oil profits would pay for it? Now he's refusing even to negotiate that the Iraqis shoulder any of the burden.

The second bill was "a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from White House control." and Bush's signing statements significantly weakened the measure.

Now, we can debate the merits of the two bills, I'm not necessarily arguing that they are good law, but the fact is that the Constitution gives the President two options only: Sign the bills or veto them (either actively or by allowing the signing time limit to expire, the so-called "pocket veto"). In either case, the Congress has the option of overriding the veto and enacting the law anyway.

This unconstitutional use of signing statements changes the fundamental balance of power, because instead of taking the risk that Congress will enact a bill the President doesn't like, he simply alters the content of the bill (something he has no constitutional right to do) by directing his Executive Branch not to follow certain portions.

This should be enough to get the man impeached. If the Democratic members of Congress had any spines at all, he would have been, long since.

Liam.