The AP is reporting a story today about how George W. Bush is on a one-man tour of law-breaking and general malfeasance. It stems from his use of “signing statements” (an executive branch’s proclamation coinciding with the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch that sets forth how the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law).

Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress

A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That’s the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee…

The article goes on to paint Bush in a broad brush of lawlessness, using phrases like “ignores the law” and “abuse of power”.

But this story isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. You see, Presidential Signing Statements have been used since James Monroe and are essentially the President’s way of expressing his opinion in regards to all or part of a law. Ultimately, as Bush has asserted, it’s up to the courts to interpret the law. Period.

The President made this statement regarding Presidential Signing Statements:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.(10) And indeed, in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Election Comm’n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, supra, the court cited to and relied upon a Presidential signing statement that had declared that a Congressionally-enacted limitation on the President’s constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States was without legal force or effect.

Yep, those were the words of the President in defense of the Signing Statements. The words of President Bill Clinton, that is. Of course, don’t expect to find any MSM reports from the 1990s about the use of Signing Statements being “abuse of power” or “ignoring of the law”.

1. Not that I expect the bias of your own site to note that Bush has used sighning statements over 750 times to Clinton’s 140.

   Comment by thomas — 8:07 am
   

2. Has Bush, in any of his hundreds of signing statements, ever properly announced his concerns and/or position to Congress or to the public?

   Comment by Donna — 9:06 am
   

3. Hey Thomas,

   Clinton got way more Oval office Blowjobs than Bush, so your point is?

   OTOH, just what is the deal with the MSM these days making it harder for us to fight terrorism? Are you counting the number of times secret information has been released? How about the ratio of damaging to national security leaks vs. made up reports that get anchors fired? I’m counting a 2:1 ratio thus far. And I’m probably a bit low on the one count.

   inquiring minds want to know.

   The fun will be the ratio of Bush’s fundraisers to Clinton’s fundraisers that get pardons/arrested.

   Comment by chris — 1:02 pm
   

4. yawn. You know it is different. don’t you. Some times I wonder if conservatives like Jason here actually belive the shitty excuses they write or if they figure that you folks are just stupid enough to eat what ever sandwich they are fixing you. I’d smell it first.

   Comment by thomas — 3:15 pm
   

5. And we all smell you #4.

   Comment by judith — 3:38 pm
   

6. “Not that I expect the bias of your own site to note that Bush has used sighning statements over 750 times to Clinton’s 140.”

   Actually, the article says Bush has used 110 signing statements. The 750 number refers to the number of statutes addressed by those statements. So therefore, he’s actually behind Clinton in quantity.

   And frankly, who cares how many times he’s used it? Just like legislators who comment during speeches on the floor, which get recorded into the record to aid courts in interpreting legislative intent, the signing statement process is another tool used by many Presidents to inject their own intent into the bills. The courts can accept or disregard such statements as they choose.

   The point of the AP story was to make the case that because Bush has used the process at all, he’s a tyrant that’s hell bent on ignoring (translation: breaking) the law. Hence the headline. You don’t see the bias, because you refuse to acknowledge that this “issue” wasn’t an “issue” when Clinton (or other Presidents) were using the methods hundreds of times to “ignore” laws in lieu of a line-item veto.

   Comment by TexasRainmaker — 3:45 pm
   

7. “Has Bush, in any of his hundreds of signing statements, ever properly announced his concerns and/or position to Congress or to the public?”

   They’re public information, so they’re all “properly announced” to the public.

   Comment by TexasRainmaker — 3:49 pm
   

8. thomas,

   WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Who cares?

   Your posts have the intellectual quality of a whinging, pouting, foot stomping, temper tantrum throwing five year old who isn’t getting his way. Not unexpected from someone of your ilk.

   Run along now, little boy, and quit bothering the adults before you get spanked with the Clue Bat.

   Comment by Nahanni — 7:13 pm
   

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.