Editorial: Making Congress a lapdog

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^ | May 3, 2006 | Editorial

[hripka]

Few if any principles are more fundamental to our way of life as Americans than the notion that no one is above the law. It is this very principle - the requirement that all of us without exception must obey the law - that makes social order possible and prevents our country from sliding into anarchy and ruin. It was in recognition of this that our founders wrote a Constitution that imposes on our presidents the solemn duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Yet this same basic principle has been repeatedly and systematically flouted by President Bush for more than five years. A Boston Globe report, published Tuesday in the Journal Sentinel, disclosed that Bush has claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress if he believes it encroaches on his presidential powers. Previous presidents on occasion made similar assertions about certain bills, but never on this scale.

Bush's bold - even imperial - claim of power is not simply an affront to the Constitution; it is a challenge that Congress cannot in good conscience evade. The rights and safety of every citizen of our country are put in peril, at least potentially, if a president can choose which laws to obey and which not to obey.

Bush's claims are contained in the official statements that presidents issue after signing legislation into law. These "signing statements" lay out a president's legal interpretations of the bills he has signed. In his statements, The Globe disclosed, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of bills he has signed.

He has appended such assertions to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed, The Globe noted, and they help explain why Bush has never vetoed a bill. If he can declare his intent not to obey laws he has signed, he has no need to veto any of them.

But under our system of government, the job of writing laws falls to Congress, not the president, and the constitutionality of laws is for the courts to decide, not the president. If a president can say he is not bound by the laws passed by Congress, then it becomes at best an advisory body with little or no real authority or value. This is surely not the role the Constitution foresees for the law-writing branch of government and is not a role that Congress should accept.

In the face of Bush's bold assertions of power, however, the Republican-controlled Congress has largely abdicated its oversight function and behaved more like a lapdog than a watchdog. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to challenge the Bush administration's bold claims of presidential authority.

On Tuesday, accusing the White House of a "very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, Specter said he will hold an oversight hearing next month into Bush's use of signing statements to bypass the law. The administration's power grab needs to be challenged by every member of Congress. This includes all of Wisconsin's delegation but particularly one who could, if he chose, be especially helpful in this regard. That would be Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the key House Judiciary Committee.

[hripka]

The Legal Significance Of Presidential Signing Statements
November 3, 1993
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Examples of the president's signing statements
April 30, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
By JOHN W. DEAN
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

[martin_fierro]

Few if any principles are more fundamental to our way of life as Americans than the notion that no one is above the law.

[Prokopton]

"But under our system of government, the job of writing laws falls to Congress, not the president, and the constitutionality of laws is for the courts to decide, not the president"

This is not true. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court this authority. It would be wrong for a President to enforce a law that he believed was unconstitutional and a President does not have to abdicate if congress attempts to usurp his Constitutional powers.

[pankot]

No body above the law but the Kennedy scum.

[hripka]

This is not true. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court this authority. It would be wrong for a President to enforce a law that he believed was unconstitutional and a President does not have to abdicate if congress attempts to usurp his Constitutional powers.

Says who? If a true conservative were elected president, because of the 9th and 10th Amendments, a LOT of government laws might well be unenforced.

On the other hand, if a far-left liberal were president, Katy bar the door!!

[Prokopton]

What's ironic is that immigration laws designed to protect our country from an invasion of illegal aliens are the laws the government has decided not to enforce, even though they are clearly provided for in the Constitution, but laws that let governments take private property for obviously private purposes are fiercely enforced, even though the Constitution does not allow it.

[garylmoore]

Bush has claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws since he took office

There's two things that you don't get unless you TAKE, that's respect and authority.

[WoofDog123]

reading through the examples given, a lot seems to be a battle over whether congress can in any way regulate activities of cabinet-level agencies. It is not clear to me that the president has broad authority to deny congress some of the things noted in the examples, while others (particularly dealing with the military) seem clearly exective in nature.

[hripka]

What's ironic is that immigration laws designed to protect our country from an invasion of illegal aliens are the laws the government has decided not to enforce, even though they are clearly provided for in the Constitution, but laws that let governments take private property for obviously private purposes are fiercely enforced, even though the Constitution does not allow it.

Some great examples.

So are we then a nation of laws? Let me rephrase that, we have lots of laws, are we a nation of law-abiders? If we are not law-abiders, who should follow the law? I think a lot of civics textbooks might need to be revised. Who determines the constitutionality of a law? The Supreme Court, or the President, or you?

[WoofDog123]

i think at this point we are a nation of so many invasive laws that we all can be found guilty of any number of things at any time.

selective enforcement is and will be the rule of the day, of course.

[hripka]

The President is the chief law-enforcement officer, if I read my Constitution correctly.

How then, if Congress passes a law, and the President SIGNS IT, can he then ignore it?

I thought the president doesn't have a line item veto?

[hripka]

i think at this point we are a nation of so many invasive laws that we all can be found guilty of any number of things at any time. selective enforcement is and will be the rule of the day, of course.

Selective enforcement by the President? Then we are worse off than I thought. One of the benefits of being a nation of laws is stability, in knowing what to expect.

Why doesn't he just veto the bill?

[Prokopton]

Who determines the constitutionality of a law? The Supreme Court, or the President, or you?

It's interesting the way the Founders balanced the powers.
Each branch of government has its own powers, as do the Citizens.
The judicial branch can make a ruling on the constitutionality of a law but they have no coercive power to enforce their decisions.
The executive branch has the coercive power to enforce its decisions, except;
the legislative branch can cut off all funds to the executive branch.
Then, we have the citizens. They have the power to make their decisions constitutional by the amendment process. But, of course, if the executive branch disagreed, who would enforce the citizens decision?

It is more a circular continuum solution to the balancing of power rather than a balancing scale.

No one knows what would happen if there was an ultimate showdown. The judiciary would almost surely lose as they have the least power, by design of the Founders. My money would be on the executive branch. It's awfully hard to argue with the CIC and all those troops.

[jwh_Denver]

"It's awfully hard to argue with the CIC and all those troops."

We're in trouble deep then.

[tobyhill]

If there's been 750 "Violations" then how many have been successfully challenged in court?

[WoofDog123]

re the line item veto, i find it amazing he wants one passed by congress rather than as an amendment, knowing very well it is unconstitutional.