Jackson Free Press

This is a good piece by Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe.

It basically lists a few things Bush does that are completely against the law.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution....

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

One important piece of the whole article was a look at presidential "signing statements". Now, I'd heard a little bit about this before, but really had no idea their political implications.

Bush is the only president to not issue a single Veto in his time in office.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

Here's an example of this further down in the article

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

The interesting part of all this is that he doesn't seem to get that whole "President" thing isn't the way to go if you really want to be "above the law". One should definitely be a movie star or a professional football player if that is one's ultimate goal. I mean, I really don't like to obey speed limits because I believe them to be stupid. But, they are THE LAW. And, as much as I hate that, I am bound to follow them because I have respect for "the system". The system that makes us America.

The one most telling to me is the signing statement that came after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal (emphasis mine):

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers.

Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements.

Now, that's a bunch of crap. I mean, *I* want to torture people. In fact, there are quite a few people I wish to torture on a daily basis. How come he's the only one that get to ignore that whole "law" thing? Seriously. That's just not fair.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said.

This is so true. Mainly because I abhor speed limits and think they are totally unconstitutional. I really think Bush would agree with me on this one.

So, while I'm here, let me just sign off with this statement:

"None of those speed limit thingies really apply to me because I'm Ali Effin' Greggs."

Now that we have that clear, I feel much better.

Previous Comments

ID

105889

Comment

Ali, I don't know if this means anything to you, but I just thought I would add this perspective. I am a very conservative person, who voted for Bush twice and am far from a liberal. That being said, I am disgusted with Bush and regret having voted for him. I still don't think I would vote for Kerry, but at the very least I should have not voted or just written my own name in. The list of reasons is too long to write here, but I am so disappointed as an American that this is my leader. The stuff you referenced in this post sounded like something off of the show 24, where government officials can just basically do anything they want and dismiss it as being for a greater good. Scary.

Author

brandon

Date

2006-05-03T08:45:41-06:00

ID

105890

Comment

An interesting subject, one of which most of our recent presidents took advantage to use... not as threatening as veto power, but in some ways just as effective. Signing statements do not have the force of law, but are influential. Are they constitutional? You bet they are. Can they be abused? You betcha. As a poli sci geek, I recommend two looks at the subject: a) http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1031858822.pdf and b) http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Author

Fielding

Date

2006-05-03T09:56:04-06:00

ID

105891

Comment

But, but, he's a war President a Compassionate Conservative! I reiterate Compassionate, Sir!! What do you have against America and George W. Bush? SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP!!! Turn off this Aliiii Greggggggs Mic. You see folks it's these filthy liberals that want to question the Presidents authority in a Time of War, it's just Un-American and I won't stand for it. [Insert your favorite Conservative Commentator here]. Isn't it clear the President is a stooge somewhat of of a crook but much more of an incompetent heavily influenced by the Smarter crooks around him... This country would do itself a major one-up too remove his entire staff from office ASAP...befor the Bird Flu Hits ;-) Siiiiiggghhhhh..... I am disappointed that some people feel as if Kerry wouldn't have been a better choice and some of these people are fairly normal people I think. The majority seem to be hiding behind their Religion and Certain Issues but we all have reasons some of ours are just better than others and don't involve dictation.

Author

JAC

Date

2006-05-03T10:58:49-06:00