More on the president's role of Chief Legislator. This from the Political Warrior last year on the controversial constitutional practice of signing statements.
______________
President Bush's recent veto of the war spending bill revealed another example of the most unnoticed Constitutional dispute during his presidency.
You know those nice photo opportunities where the President signs bills as he is surrounded by friendly legislators? Don't let the smiles and glad-handing fool you. Those moments have become ground zero in the debate about presidential power.
After those celebrated public events, Bush has a tendency to add "signing statements" to the actual piece of legislation that challenges the laws he signs.
Last April, the Boston Globe reported on examples of these signing statements including:
March 9, 2006: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.These signing statements become public record of how Bush interprets the legislation, and some estimate that he adds these controversial statements on about 10 percent of the laws he signs.
The most recent example of this came when Bush issued his second veto. In vetoing the Iraq War spending bill because of the deadlines it would impose, Bush issued the veto from the Oval Office at about 5:30 p.m., using a pen given to him by the father of a fallen marine. On withdrawing combat troops, Bush wrote: "This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency by the Constitution, including as commander in chief of the armed forces."
According to the Chicago Tribune, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid--a former lawyer-- challenged Bush --a former businessman-- by stating: "We are not going to be submitting our legislation to someone-who-didn't-go-to-law-school's idea of constitutionality."
The Boston Globe has more coverage on the president's signing statements:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
5 comments:
My position on this is the same as the line-item veto. I stongly favor a powerful executive, but I draw the line here. Interpreting a law is up to the courts, not the President. If the President does not like a bill, he should veto it and send it back to Congress with an explanation as to why he didn't like it. He should not modify the legislation on his own. That's what judicial review is for.
I agree with Garrett. What Bush is consistently doing is unconstitutional. Someone should challenge the constitutionality of the "laws" that he makes from his add-ins.
I also agree. It is up to the courts, not the President, to interpret legislation. It is definitely not acceptable for the President to overstep his powers as defined by the Constitution like this.
(continued, sry)
not that it says in the constitution that courts have the power of judicial review - but it is widely accepted that judicial review is a necessary and helpful power of the courts. what i meant is that the president is given very specific powers as to what he can do with legislation...to take over a power that has already been claimed by another branch of government is wrong.
i'd like to disagree. I think that the executive has the right to give executive orders. I think that it is an inherent constituitional right of the president given to him in article two, section three, that he shall "take care of the the laws be faithfully executed". While I do disagree with the policy that President Bush dictates in these signing statements and orders, I feel that such a power is necessary to properly insure stability and tranquility in government and the nation.
Post a Comment