When George Bush signed the defense appropriation bill containing John McCain’s amendment removing torture and other human rights violations from the official repertoire of the armed forces, he added his own little amendment: “Unless I say otherwise.” The vehicle through which he reserved the option to break the law is called a bill-signing statement, and as Knight Ridder’s Ron Hutcheson revealed on Friday, the McCain bill was far from the first victim of the practice: Bush has used it some 500 times since taking office.
I’ve speculated on a few occasions that the White House has had a tacit agreement with Congress: So long as Congress doesn’t interfere with the administration, the president won’t interfere with the drunken-sailor pork bender that distinguishes this Republican Congress from all others. The thesis was based on Bush’s historic reluctance to veto a bill, or even to threaten one; he’s the only president since James Garfield to go an entire term without vetoing a bill, and Garfield was only in office a few months before he was shot.
Apparently, though, the explanation is much simpler. Bush doesn’t veto bills because in his view, he doesn’t have to; he can simply ignore the ones he doesn’t like.
The administration have made that argument explicit, but only in terms of the president’s capacity as “commander in chief” during an endless war, as with the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping, the decisions to ignore various Geneva Conventions and the selective suspension of habeas corpus. According to the Hutcheson story, though, it isn’t only legislation dealing with national security issues that the White House asserts the right to ignore.
In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush’s use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.
I have a request in to the White House for a list of the legislation to which the president has appended bill-signing statements, along with the text of the statements. We’ll see how that goes. Meanwhile, Hutcheson provides a bit of background on the brief but sordid history of bill-signing statements.
The roots of Bush’s approach go back to the Ford administration, when Dick Cheney, then serving as White House chief of staff, chafed at legislative limits placed on the executive branch in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and other abuses of power by President Nixon. Now the vice president and his top aide, David Addington, are taking the lead in trying to tip the balance of power away from Congress and back to the president.[...]
Reagan adopted the strategy and used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, according to Kelley’s tally. President George H.W. Bush challenged 146 laws; President Clinton challenged 105. The current president has lodged more than 500 challenges so far.
Cheney has done an admirable job of tipping the balance of power; at the moment, the only power Congress appears to have is that of the purse, and the purse is jammed open, at least if you have a bridge in Alaska you want to sell.
Hutcheson also notes that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito supported expanding the practice during his stint in the Reagan justice department, although he questioned the legality of it. One of our honorary legislators might want to ask him about that during his confirmation hearings.
The upshot of this is that until someone gets around to challenging the White House, Congress is just an advisory body with the authority to dole out bucketloads of cash. For now, we have a coup.
=====================
UPDATE: edited to correct Samuel Alito’s name
What is the constitutionality of the signing statement itself? How does it relate to the line item veto?
Jerry, the practice has apparently never been tested in court. So far as I know, there’s nothing in the Constitution allowing the president to ignore part or all of a bill at his discretion. I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess as to whether the statements are intended as stealth line-item vetos without having them at hand.
Once a bill is signed by the President it is a law. The President’s signning statement is, arguably, helpful to a court reviewing a law to determine its purpose or to inteprent ambiguos language but, generally, courts look to the legislative history of the law (what its sponsor said in support of the legislation, law review articles, etc.) and I personally can’t recall ever seeing a court consider a signing statmeent to consider the President’s intention when he signed a bill. If Bush doesn’t like a bill, well, he needs to man up and use his veto power. Otherwise, once signed, he can stfu and follow the law like the rest of us mere mortals. I am just sayin’.
About a Bill-Signing Statemen
Wander what President Bush’s idiotic bill signing statements are? Well, they are “challenge statements” produced when the President signs a bill, which more often than not, says that the President can disregard elements of the bill-cum-law. This Che…
Struck by an idea while reading your post; Presidents want wars so they can expand their power. It’s weird that that never occurred to me as a reason for war but now it makes perfect sense. Thanks.
Presidents want wars so they can expand their power.
That’s almost directly out of 1984; specifically, segments from The Book outlining how wars are used to keep the population in line and accepting of the absolute power of the state.
Stalin, meet Bush. Bush, Stalin. Get acquainted. (Hyperbole? Sure, but the parallels are developing far too quickly for my liking)
mshew wrote, The President’s signning statement is, arguably, helpful to a court reviewing a law to determine its purpose or to inteprent ambiguos language…
I don’t think it’s arguable. There’s nothing in the history of democratic praxis to indicate anything like this is true.
this is like the local police chief or the mayor saying, “I won’t enforce prostitution laws.”
it’s like the governor saying, well abortion may be legal under the us constitution, but we’re still gonna arrest people for it.
Dubya must have learned this from Good ‘Ole Boy Friend Tommy Thompson, who used it to run rough-shod over Wisconsin for a long time. We are still trying to unravel the economic mess he made of this state!
Once a bill is signed by the President it is a law. The President’s signning statement is, arguably, helpful to a court reviewing a law to determine its purpose or to inteprent ambiguos language but…
That’s utter nonsense. There is no Constitutional basis whatsoever for this idea. The legislature legislates, the chief executive executes. That’s the way it was meant to work. And no one should better understand that than the so-called original intent mavins.
QOTD – Two for the price of one
It’s good to be the king Apparently, though, the explanation is much simpler. Bush doesn’t veto bills because in his view, he doesn’t have to; he can simply ignore the ones he doesn’t like. Absolute Power The struggle against terrorism…
Good post, but you got Alito’s name wrong–it’s Sam the Scam for classy judgeship.
The Imperial March
We’re no longer a nation of laws. This is a despotism (via BTC News) :President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as…
chainsaw – I didn’t say I agreed that a signing statement is a good idea. I believe the signing statement is irrelevant as a matter of constitutional law. But, I could see how a reviewing court would at least look at the damn thing (especially a judge who was looking for something to bolster his/her opinion about a particular law).
The comments asking about the Constitutionality of a “signing statement” miss the point, because they fail to think like a corrupt, criminal, evil, Bush administration wing-nut dedicated to giving Bush imperial powers.
Congress has a DUTY to oversee the President’s actions to ensure that he is executing legislation as they intended. If, in their oversight, Congress notes that the President is doing other than they intended because of an ambiguity in legislation then they should pass clarifying legislation. If Congress notes that the President is deliberately misinterpreting legislation then they should threaten him with impeachment if he does not change his ways (or simply impeach him without giving him a chance to change).
The signing statement is a public (as in the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” definition of “public documents” hidden in a room marked “beware of the tiger”) declaration of how the President will interpret legislation. If Congress, in their oversight, feels that this interpretation is incorrect then it is their DUTY to take corrective action. If Congress do not take corrective action then they have implicitly consented to the President’s interpretation.
This is the argument that would be presented to the Supreme Court, and even an unbiased, non-partisan court would find it difficult (if not impossible) to dispute it. It is clearly a ploy intended to stay within the letter of the law whilst ignoring the spirit of the law when conducting a Presidential power-grab, but the courts are restricted to judgements based upon the letter of the law. Congress not only has within its power the ability to correct Presidential misinterpretations, it has a Constitutional DUTY to do so. If Congress does not do so then the President is entitled to assume that his interpretation is correct until such time that Congress says otherwise.
It’s the last line of defence. If all of John Yoo’s bizarre, other-worldly, LSD-fuelled legal constructs are struck down as the ravings of a loon, Bush can fall back on the signing statement as proof that he was entitled to believe his actions were entirely legal and in accord with Congressional intent. It’s not like he did things secretly so that Congress wouldn’t find out, he told them UP FRONT what he was going to do. It’s Congress’s fault if they chose not to act over Bush’s expressed intentions.
I see, it’s ALL Congress’s fault.
This administration throws so much shit 24/7, 365 it’s hard to keep up with any of it and you think that a Congress that’s, let’s see, the last time I looked was Republican controlled and tied so tight to the crimes this WH has already committed is going to “do something” to hold bush accountable? LOL!!!
Yeah, right, you believe this I have some nice water-front property in the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans I’d like to sell you.
Gonnuts: yes, it’s Congress’s fault. The courts, too, to the extent any of this has passed muster in the courts, but mostly Congress, since they’re the only ones who can shut off the money or impeach the president. And no, I don’t expect them to do anything about it unless not doing something becomes politically impossible.
mshew wrote, “…I could see how a reviewing court would at least look at the damn thing (especially a judge who was looking for something to bolster his/her opinion about a particular law).”
Do you have any evidence from the history of Anglo-American law that a judge could reasonably do this?
Count me skeptical.
considering the lack of veto
an interesting statement that floated into my brain… Bush signs bills but keeps his fingers crossed [btc news]Bush doesnt veto bills because in his view, he doesnt have to; he can simply ignore the ones he doesnt like. congress makes…
I see lefty liberals are, as always, hysterically hyperventilating about being mere minutes away from being dragged into the gulags by the evil Bushitler.
Of course, when there were actual gulags and forced famines going on, you were too busy giving Pulitzers to Walter Duranty for ignoring them and castigating McCarthy for getting their spies out of our gov’t to worry about that.
How’s your buddy Fidel doing, btw? How many political executions this year so far? Not hearing much outrage about that giant gulag off the coast of Florida.
TallDave: I see all your basket weaving classes paid off. Congrats.
BUSHELZEBUBBA TOADIA
2 repuguberTrollz (Oppsee: TooClever By .666)
Silly Bushwits! NSA bugs Bunny, but Gannon? Not so Phast. GOP STORY PROBLEM: if DubyaSquatzi (aka, Democracy $urrender Monkeys) “mate” (imPOSSibly True!)with…with / Dr. Lou! [$iffur--GOP $piritual "Mentor"] as the Bible offers in Spirit that they did, do, and will ["fool" the VERY E-lekt (sic)]
HOW MANY WAYS TO SUNDAY WILL GEORGEDICK ARNULD SCREW AMERICA?*
Wide-eyed, the Fool’s Errand of Redstate “Christianity” looks to a father-figured martial wanker (brainl$$ st0rmtr00per of THE most chickenhawked war in U.S. history ( http://awolbush.com )
*tuh keep us SAFE. lIkE he did that day in, umm, September. That inspiring NeoConposure…readin’ My Pet Goat…
as “fellow americans” lept wrenched, twisted, dazed hopeless, enough to leap into the void…if only they cudda HEARD their PResident on the Bullhorn the Nexed Day!!
*foreheadslap*
BTCnews via KOS, on Bush’s use of bill-signing statements to avoid being bound by congressional laws: In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush’s use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the…