Surprised that this hasn't been diaried yet. If it has been, I will delete this. It seems ABC is hammering Bush over the consitutionality of his use of signing statements, claiming - correctly - that Bush is exceeeding his authority in ignoring laws that Congress passes.
The surprise here is mainly that the MSM is the party doing the accusing. Now, if they would only keep at it, and if only other MSM parties would join in, some grounds for impeachement might be forthcoming.
More below the fold...
Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress
Some nice kicks to the groin, if they mean it.
WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?
Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.
That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.
"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Arlen. We'll believe you have balls when the pig Rove flies. Specter, as everyone here is aware, has been yammerin' and yammerin' about Bush this and Bush that, but every time push comes to shove, Spector's committee - by edict of Spector himself - pulls the old foldo, giving Bush yet another pass.
Will he mean it ths time? Will he head them off at the pass? Will our hero Arlen come to the rescue of the fair damsels and John Does of the U.S.? We are holding our breath in anticipation (not).
The article closes with this total wimp out:
Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.
Well, let's see. Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution happens to say,
Section 3. He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
"He shall take care that THE LAWS be faithfully executed." Hmmm . . . that plural implies just a bit that it is talking about bills that Congress passed into law (see Article 1), and that he or one of his predecessors has signed, making it into LAW.
So, what does "faithfully execute" mean, as it was written into the Constitution? Well, at the beginning of Article 2, it opens with,
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
"Executive power". Now what could that mean? In plain language it means he is the one charged with (empowered) to execute "something", to make "it" happen. And what could that "it", that "something" be?
Well, from the earlier quote above (Article 2,Section 3), it is clear that what he is to execute is the laws.
Now, Article 2, Section 3 does not in any way say that he executes some of the laws. It says the laws.
And that funny word in there, "faithfully" - doesn't that have some bearing on this? Doesn't faithfully mean that his execution of the laws must be in accord with the intent of the lawmakers who wrote the bills that a President has signed into law?
Doesn't a signing statement that contradicts that intent of the lawmakers actually prove UNfaithfulness of that intent? And doesn't that, underlying everything else, mean that Bush is NOT faithfully executing "the office of President of the United States"?
The clear language of Article, therefore, actually states that "executive power" can only derive from the laws as they are written. It is the responsibility of the lawyers in the White House and in the Justice Department, above everything else, to see that the laws ARE adhered to.
Most of us are not lawyers, so my analysis here - by a non-lawyer - means nada. But if they really mean that this is a nation of laws, then it is about time that the people charged with constitutional responsibilities - the Congress and the Courts - stand up and enforce the Consittution upon Bush, and if he will not comply, then they should impeach him. Many, if not most, of the Congress are lawyers, so they can clearly see the language and its intent. There is no wiggle room in there. "The" does not mean "some". Bush "does not get to pick and choose" which laws to execute. Any time he ignores ones he simply doesn't like, he is in violation of his oath of office, and thus he is subject to impeachment.
To successfully impeach and convict Bush, some of the GOP in the Senate will have to stand up for the Constitution instead of their man in the White House. The only way that will happen is if they clearly see him violating his oath of office. They may try to let him off with, "Oh, but he didn't really mean to violate the Constitution, so we'll just slap his wrists." But he has done it so many times that they can't blow it off as a simple oversight. It is clearly and impudently being done consciously and repeatedly and daring anyone in Congress to do something about it.
As long as Specter howls but then does nothing at the moment of decision, we are all at the mercy of the Vilage Idiot and the whims of his handlers.
It is not the responsibility of the MSM to call Bush out on this. The Constitutional officers in the Congress and the Courts should be doing it. The press has no legal standing, other than to be free. It is good, but inadequate, that the AP and ABC are attacking Bush on this, but it is spitting into the wind if the Congress and the Courts don't do anything.
. . . . TD