Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineYou know, this is outrageous. Out-freaking-rageous. Once again, George W. Bush declares that he won't be bound by Congress's laws, not when they get in the way of his plans for Iraq. Yes, once again, the signing statements are back. Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe, the only reporter who seems to give a damn about this topic, writes:
President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
Specifically, Bush has said he won't be bound by provisions in the Defense bill he signed forbidding the expenditure of funds to build permanent bases in Iraq. He also said he won't be bound by Congress's direction that the US is not to control Iraq's oil. Moreover, he has reserved the right not to act on other provisions of the law that would mandate establishing a commission to investigate waste, fraud and abuse in military contracts, as well as another to strengthen whistle-blower protection. Finally, he reserves the right to decide whether or not he's going to enforce a requirement that the presidsent explain in writing when intelligence agencies refuse to provide documents to the two armed services committees in Congress.
OK, look. When the president doesn't like a law, he is free to veto it. What he should not be free to do is to sign the law, then say oh, by the way, I'm going to cherry-pick which parts I want to obey and enforce. I wish Congress would sue Bush and force the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of signing statements. I don't care who the president is, it is absolutely wrong in my book for the executive branch to claim and exercise the right to do this kind of thing. Veto the damn law, and if you get overridden, then you have to obey it. The president is not above the law! More from Savage's story:
Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said."What this shows is that they're continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president's unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that's a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition," said Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s.
I was thinking, "Why haven't Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton raised hell about this?" Then I read to the end of Savage's story. Turns out that both Democrats say they'll make use of signing statements too if they become president. John McCain says he won't.
We will all come to regret the day we let Bush get away with this. If President Clinton or President Obama pull this same crap, I don't want to hear any Republicans whining about it.
Subscribe
Comments
Chain of command really is simple: the expansion of general orders on down the ranks with details the responsibility of each lesser commander according to defined scopes at each level.
I know, it's just that everyone seems to forget that, while the president is where the military chain of command ends, above him is Congress that decides what he can do. They form a military, they declare war, they decide what rules the military operates under.
It's not a military relationship, but that just means above our military there's two levels of civilian command, not one. (Or, arguably, three, with the Constitution being the highest.)
Or, to rephrase: First soldiers obey the constitution, second military law (aka, Congress, which writes it), and third the military chain of command, which terminates in the president.
Many people have gotten the rather surreal idea that the military is the president's plaything and he can do whatever he wants with it. In a sense, that's true...because Congress has made it so, where the president can do many things without specific authorization for some set amount of time.
That in no way gives him any right to disregard anything they say, anymore then the fact parents normally let their teenager hang out with friends after school without getting permission means that teenager can ignore a grounding if they feel like it.
Posted by: DavidTC | February 1, 2008 8:00 PM
I'm sorry to keep finding nits, David, but I can't leave your not-quite accurate statements go, as trivial as they might be to the larger discussion.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm
The oath is to defend the Constitution, and to obey the orders of superiors up to and including the president. There is no mention of Congress, nor can one construe any connection to or oath to obey Congress.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
The Uniform Code of Military Justice was indeed authored by Congress, but like any Congressional bill, it became law upon the signature of the president (Truman, 1950). I shall write the following assuming you already know it, but may need to see it at this point because you are getting close to contradicting it: Congress writes the laws, the Executive enables, implements and enforces laws, and the Supreme Court adjudicates arguments under the law. The metaphor is not Congress over the president, but Congress, Executive and Judiciary standing side-by-side with complex, two-way interdependencies. Congress can impeach a president, but it cannot override a president, not in the sense connoted in your last post.
Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 1, 2008 8:58 PM
There is no mention of Congress, nor can one construe any connection to or oath to obey Congress.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
First loyalty, constitution.
Second loyalty, regulations and the UCMJ.(1)
Third loyalty, the chain of command, only in accordance with the second.
If, for example, the second says 'Don't obey the chain of command', it wins. Which is not some hypothetical situation, it happens every time a soldier is discharged.
Of course the UMCJ, like any law, gets the signature of the President...and, just like any law, Congress can override his veto.
My hypothetical situation of Congress directly issuing orders, in the form of regulations, to soldiers still stands. There might be an additional lag of three days while the President gets to veto said regulations, but when he does so Congress could just override his veto. (I forget if there's a way to take a veto-proof vote and turn it into a bill without the president getting to stall it for three days.)
1) Oddly enough, there appears to be an oversight here that the second isn't listed as only obeyed in accordance with the first, implying that the constitution and military law are equals. Which they aren't. But that is not relevant here.
Posted by: DavidTC | February 2, 2008 1:23 PM
David, you are conflating the mechanics of legislation with the entities that perform them. I'm sorry if that seems like a brush-off to you, but I can't seem to make that point clear, so I'll just move on. Be well.
Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 2, 2008 5:17 PM
On the off chance anyone is still reading this thread, there is an interesting piece in today's Washington Post magazine about the decade-long battle over building the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in DC a century ago.
Turns out Congress thought it settled the issue with an appropriation bill passed in early 1909, which would have prevented construction of the Memorial on the Mall. According to the Post article, Teddy Roosevelt signed the bill into law on his last day in office but used a signing statement to express his view that certain provisions, including those relating to the Memorial's location, were unconstitutional. Since President Taft shared Roosevelt's view, the congressional restrictions were effectively voided, paving the way for the ultimate resolution of the issue 2 years later in favor of the Roosevelt/Taft position.
Point is, people who think the use of signing statements is a nefarious and unheard of assault on the Constitution by Bush and the Neocons do not know their history.
Posted by: Simon | February 3, 2008 11:22 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?