Little-known device becomes a favorite tool for president

MiamiHerald ^ | Jan 09 06 | RON HUTCHESON AND JAMES KUHNHENN

[ncountylee]

WASHINGTON - 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 he signed it into law.

Acting from the seclusion of his Texas ranch at the start of New Year's weekend, Bush said he would interpret the new law in keeping with his expansive view of presidential power. He did it by issuing a bill-signing statement -- a little-noticed device that has become a favorite tool of presidential power in the Bush White House.

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power -- and not just on national-security issues.

''It's nothing short of breathtaking,'' said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University. ``In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary.''

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but they can influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive-branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws.

In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress he has no intention of carrying out provisions he considers an unconstitutional encroachment on his authority.

''They don't like some of the things Congress has done, so they assert the power to ignore it,'' said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. ``The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming.''

[dirtboy]

''It's nothing short of breathtaking,'' said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University.

Wonder if this guy had similar comments about Clinton's executive orders.

[Darkwolf377]

''It's nothing short of breathtaking,'' said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University. ``In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary.'' Signing statements don't have the force of law, but they can influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive-branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws.

They let the executive-branch agencies know how the chief executive wants them to implement the law he's just signed?

Wow, this is shocking!

Next breaking shocking story: When Bush says "I support this bill", we've discovered he actually supports a bill, a stunning break with presidential precedent!

[kingu]

I suppose that reporters read only part of the first amendment anymore.. The rest of the document means nothing to them.

[sheltonmac]

Little-known device becomes a favorite tool for president

Well, we know that it certainly isn't the veto.

[Bernard Marx]

``In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary.''

Hallelujah! It's about time. Eventually there will be another shift between the 3 EQUAL branches but in the recent past the Judiciary has usurped both Presidential and Legislative powers. It's time to bring the Imperial Judiciary into line, let the President do what he's Constitutionally empowered to do, and restore total legislative responsibility to the Congress.

[rellimpank]

----yeah-- "stroke of the pen, law of the land"--Paul Begala, IIRC--

[Zeppelin]

I have a comment about Clinton's executive orders. Or in this case, "lack-thereof."

Has anyone read "Dereliction of Duty"? In it, the former carrier of the nuclear football tells of TWO incidents when Clinton had the chance to take out Osama, but didn't. Once because he didn't want to cause an international incident (irony!), and once because he said he would decide when he finished his game of golf, by which time our recon over Afghanistan had lost track of the vehicle.

I would highly recommend reading that book.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

ROTL!!!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The left is really leaving no stone unturned in their denounciations of the President.

Do you think they've found out about the Clinton executive orders yet?

[Yo-Yo]

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power -- and not just on national-security issues.

Oh, you mean like issuing an Executive Order making millions of acres of forest a "National Monument" to prevent logging that was approved by Congress?

[subterfuge]

"Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements"

Unadulterated lie. "Experts" do lie for a fee.

[Yo-Yo]

Rolling On The Lawn?

[mtbopfuyn]

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but they can influence judicial interpretations of a statute.

As if anything could influence the Supremes.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Another typo!!!

ROTL = ROFL

[A. Pole]

Wonder if this guy had similar comments about Clinton's executive orders.

Would you?

[dirtboy]

Would you?

I did in fact.

[A. Pole]

Me too

[K-oneTexas]

Interesting.
Read more at The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives by Todd F. Gaziano, Heritage Foundation from February 21, 2001.

For President George W. Bush, grand total thru 2005 is 195:
2001 - E.O. 13198 - E.O. 13251 (54 Executive orders issued)
2002 - E.O. 13252 - E.O. 13282 (31 Executive orders issued)
2003 - E.O. 13283 - E.O. 13323 (41 Executive orders issued)
2004 - E.O. 13324 - E.O. 13368 (45 Executive orders issued)
2005 - E.O. 13369 - E.O. 13392 (24 Executive orders issued)
Read more at Executive Orders Disposition Tables Administration of George W. Bush (2001-Present), The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

[jackibutterfly]

"ROTL = ROFL"

Sorry, wrong again. Try, "ROTF (rolling on the floor)

ROTFL = "Rolling on the floor laughing." K?