Another Presidential Signing Statement

When scholars discuss the steps that will be necessary to "unwind" a Bush presidency, one issue that is raised repeatedly is reassessing the use of the signing statement. John Dean describes this administration's use of the signing statement as an abuse of power comparable to Nixon's - or worse.

Gary Hart has an editorial in the Huffington Post expounding on the President's latest signing statement, issued upon passage of the Defense Authorization Bill.

Yesterday, President Bush signed the Defense Authorization Bill, including Section 1222 prohibiting permanent military bases in Iraq, with the now customary "signing statement" declaring that he has no intention of enforcing the law of the land, including this provision, though bound by oath and Constitution to do so.

Anyone paying attention has known for years that our plans for Iraq included permanent bases to facilitate a longterm occupation. We posted this in May of 2006.

We're not planning to stay in Iraq past the completion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We'll stand down as Iraqis stand up. There are no plans for permanent bases in Iraq. Yes, framing is really nothing more than the marketing of political ideas. In truth, we are mired in a military operation without clear objectives and no definable endpoint. Yes, we're going to hear a lot of noise about "troop drawdowns" this year, but they are merely window dressing designed to get the GOP through the 2006 elections without having to actually address the issue of withdrawal. By President Bush's own admission, finishing this business will fall to his predecessor.

Fast forward not quite two years later, and the only thing that has changed is the date. Clearly, the boy prez plans on riding the "surge" all the way to his last day in office.

To protect our access to Iraq's oil, Bush will do everything in his power to ensure that we not only complete those permanent bases, but that we are bound by our own treaty to occupy them. As Hart states:

To seal the deal, with the expectation of binding future presidential successors, Mr. Bush and Iraq president Nouri al-Maliki are in the process of negotiating a "status of forces agreement" that would commit the U.S. military to combat any internal or external factions the Iraqi government deemed a threat. This represents a one-directional security treaty cloaked in the form of an agreement not subject to Senate ratification. And it guarantees U.S. involvement in age-old Iraqi sectarian conflict for decades to come.

The key to the Democrats winning the oval office this fall is forcing the Republicans to have the debate, not about some nebulous "victory" which the administration has purposefully never defined, but about the costs of empire.

specter ready to sue president bush over unconstitutional signing statements

Since the beginning of his administration, President Bush has shown that he doesn't put much stock in what Congress says. After all, he's the decider. Even though he just used his first veto last week over the stem cell research bill, he has shown his contempt for over 800 individual laws in the bills he has signed by creating signing statements in which he declares that he doesn't really have to listen to the legislation even after it becomes law.

Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

The White House insists that these signing statements are not intended to provide the president a means in which to ignore the law, but others feel differently: namely, the American Bar Association.

President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

Now, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, has decided that the time has come to challenge President Bush's blatant disregard for constitutional measure. Senator Specter has said that he will have a bill ready by Monday allowing Congress to sue the president in a federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will... authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said on the Senate floor.

Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.

The ABA report that found Bush's signing statements unconstitutional also came to the conclusion that the unlawful practice came about during the Reagan administration. Apparently, President Reagan was instructed to use this "strategic weapon" by young lawyer Samuel Alito, Bush's latest Supreme Court installment.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn was quick to side with the president, as usual. He pointed out that signing statements hold no weight in the courts and are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, when pressed on the issue, said that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

According to top Democrats, Specter's legislation will be supported by the progressive caucus and many moderate Republicans. Senator Patrick Leahy, senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committe and a Vermont Democrat, said last month that "we are at a pivotal moment in our nation's history, where Americans are faced with a president who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked executive power."