Bush stretches executive power

The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on "presidential signing statements" shed light on yet another example of President Bush's willingness to stretch executive power beyond its proper limits.

Those statements are nothing new, as the White House and its allies were quick to suggest. But this administration's frequent and unorthodox use of the tactic goes to the heart of the system of checks and balances the Founders created to preserve both freedom and security.

In a "statement on signing," the president can express his views about legislation that he has just signed into law. Presidents throughout history have issued them; for the most part, there is nothing inherently troubling about them. They have been used to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill and express satisfaction or, on occasion, displeasure with laws Congress has passed.

But I have great concern about recent uses of these signing statements by Bush. Since his inauguration, he has used this vehicle to object to more than 500 provisions in more than 100 pieces of legislation -- a number approaching the 575 statements issued by all his predecessors combined.

Perhaps the best-known examples are the president's assertion that he may not be bound by the so-called McCain amendment prohibiting the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees or by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits wiretapping of Americans without a warrant.

But his statements have also been attached to legislation unrelated to the war on terror -- affirmative action programs, requirements of statistical compilations by executive agencies and measures establishing qualifications for executive appointees.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make the laws. Under Article II, the president has the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution also says the president should veto laws he finds constitutionally objectionable, thus giving Congress the chance to override his veto.

In his nearly six years in office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill. Instead, he has signed bills into law -- and then issued signing statements that declare he will not give them (or some provision contained within them) effect. This allows the president to circumvent the veto requirement and prevents Congress from having the chance to override it, as the Founders required.

Unfortunately, it's not all about the president. Congress bears responsibility for cooperating with this power grab by repeatedly surrendering its responsibility to ensure that the executive branch is enforcing the laws and otherwise acting lawfully and constitutionally.

There are serious concerns, spanning partisan and ideological lines, that this and other aspects of the administration's overreaching are creating a constitutional crisis.

For that reason I share those concerns, and so I have joined the Coalition to Defend Checks and Balances, a project of the bipartisan Constitution Project.

Our members -- more than 40 Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals -- include former top government officials and judges, scholars and others who are determined to promote constitutional safeguards by speaking out about the risk of permanent and unchecked presidential power and the accompanying failure of Congress to exercise its responsibility as a separate and independent branch of government.

The coalition has issued a statement urging the president to immediately abandon the inappropriate uses of presidential signing statements. We've urged him to publicly announce and explain his intention not to comply with any statute or treaty and the reasons for any such decision. Only then can Congress, the courts and the public determine whether a failure to comply is legitimate and warranted.

We've also urged Congress to make unmistakably clear the link between a president's inappropriate use of signing statements and the costs of doing so. Congress can use its 'power of the purse" to deny the president appropriations that he has requested; it can refuse to advance legislation that the president favors; or it can repeal legislation authorizing programs the president supports.

Finally, we've also filed, in cooperation with the Rutherford Institute, a Freedom of Information Act request asking the Justice Department to produce all documents related to signing statements issued by the past five presidents so we can conduct a thorough review of this practice and place it in proper historical context.

Chief executives frequently, and appropriately, will disagree with the legislature. And presidents in wartime have always faced particular temptations to go their own way. The nation is engaged in a fight against terror that surely will last for decades, but we cannot forget that our country's Framers intended that no single person would have complete and unilateral control over government.

The separation of powers is not a mere "technicality." It is the centerpiece of our Constitution, and our freedoms depend upon it.

Regardless of political affiliation or personal philosophy, all Americans must remember and reinforce these lessons -- or our freedoms will become a thing of the past, impossible to recover.

JULY 18-24: Clinton Fires Sessions; After a Long Struggle, A Former Agent Is Named For the Top F.B.I. Job
By DAVID JOHNSTON

Months of turmoil at the Federal Bureau of Investigation ended last week as President Clinton ousted William S. Sessions, who had refused to resign ever since a highly critical report was issued in January on his use of Government planes and limousines. Wielding the ax publicly, Mr. Clinton declared that Mr. Sessions "can no longer effectively lead the Bureau and the law enforcement community."

decision by Attorney General Janet Reno and William S. Sessions, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to assault the compound with tanks and tear gas.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had no recent evidence that children were being beaten in the Branch Davidian compound, F.B.I. Director William S. Sessions said today. The Director's remarks contradicted assertions by President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno that escalating child abuse had been a major reason to assault the complex near Waco, Tex., on Monday.

April 21, 1993

A report presented to the Justice Department that month by the Office of Professional Responsibility included criticisms that he had used an FBI plane to travel to visit his daughter on several occasions and had had a security system installed in his home at government expense.

Perhaps these writers need to take a look at the unprecedented hundreds of Executive Orders issued by former President Clinton. Talking about stretching executive power! I hope that they know the difference! ...more evidence of the lame stream media, IMO! What a bunch of morons!

For that reason I share those concerns, and so I have joined the Coalition to Defend Checks and Balances, a project of the bipartisan Constitution Project.

It's interesting to note that leftists and RINOs didn't seem to notice Executive Branch abuses until Bush came along. I seem to recall that one William Jefferson "Bubba" Clinton used Executive Orders to routinely circumvent the Congress and the will of the people and, yet, there was nary a peep from the MSM.

While I am dismayed that no one in the White House has competently been able to teach Bush how to spell "veto" so he can use it to strike down some REALLY horrible bills that have come across his desk, Bush has employed the various powers provided to the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch at his pleasure and discretion as the law allows. The Legislative Branch has the option of repealing those powers if they are unhappy with the way they are being used, but they don't want to screw up the landscape for what they hope will be a leftist successor to Bush.

I have no dog in this fight, being a foreigner, but it does seem a somewhat dubious method to use. How would you folks feel if a Clinton duplicate president used similar methodologies in the future to evade legislation produced by Republican-controlled houses?

How would you folks feel if a Clinton duplicate president used similar methodologies in the future to evade legislation produced by Republican-controlled houses?

The author of this piece is wringing his hands over President Bush's openness about acting the way most or all of our Presidents have. IOW, this President is using signing statements to let Congress know up front, as opposed to saying nothing, yet handling legislation in the very same way.

As was pointed out in this piece, "Congress can use its "power of the purse" to deny the president appropriations that he has requested; it can refuse to advance legislation that the president favors; or it can repeal legislation authorizing programs the president supports.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.