According to Christopher Kelley , a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio, Bush has used signing statements to claim exemptions from 1,149 laws in 150 bills. All of his predecessors combined used such statements to challenge about 600 laws.
The foregoing is from today's Boston Globe, in an editorial entitled Investigating back-door vetoes.
One other thing to keep in mind. As I write this on Sunday morning, the top rated diary, by Major Danby (who is a lawyer, I am not), it about getting ready to impeach Dick Cheney. It is superbly well reasoned and written. The recent assertions that the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch may finally be enough to force the Congress - and the Courts? - to act against a man who may be able to lay claim to the title of worst national public servant in history.
I believe that we now have a very narrow period of time in which the Congress can reassert its rightful role as a coequal branch of government. It has been clear for several years that this administration does not believe that it should be subject to any constraints it is not willing to impose on itself. From observing its behavior as far back as the 2000 campaign, it is clear that it is willing to go to any lengths it deems warranted (which means to any lengths necessary) in order that it can claim that its power has not been restricted.
Let's review PART of the record - to cite every example would make this diary to unwieldy, and most of us have something better to do with our Sunday mornings.
Even prior to the campaign in 2000, Bush's TANG records may well have been purged. While that was kept hidden before the first election, when it became clear that the story might well get out, we had the strange incident involving 60 Minutes which has all the earmarks of a Rove-directed operation - after all, the man once bugged his own office.
During the post-election dispute in Florida, the campaign worked very hard to ever have Bush trailing in the public count. When during the dispute over the military absentee ballots the judge telegraphed his intent to reject all military ballots that had arrived after election day, claiming they were being counted under a consent decree that had been intended for one election only, rather than wait until the judgment was issue (which would immediately have put Bush behind) and then appealing to Federal Court to overturn the ruling, Ben Ginsberg cut deals with the Republican election supervisors and pulled the suit.
We have an administration that regular says things to Congress with its fingers crossed behind the back. Thus we have Gonzales saying he won't answer a hypothetical when in fact the question goes directly to an action already done by the administration. Because the administration was claiming plenipotentiary powers, that the president could fully act on his own, a position that had not YET been fully disclosed to the Congress, technically the statement by Gonzales was not a false statement to Congress, but they had no way of knowing that this was yet another example of the administration's version of "it depends was the meaning of 'is' is".
In international relations, the administration has claimed an independent ability to reinterpret the responsibilities of the United States under international agreement. It has pushed heavily to get other countries to exempt US officials (note how I phrase it) from prosecution under international tribunals: and it should now be clear that this may be not so much for the state reason of protecting American servicemen but rather so that no international or foreign court can claim jurisdiction over the patently illegal actions of this administration. Fortunately in the case of CIA seizure of people in other countries, several are refusing to be intimidated and have indicted American personnel, although only the operation personnel are as yet so far charged, which parallels what happened at Abu Ghraib. We are supposed to believe that the most controlling administration in history was unaware of actions made on its behalf, and even after exposure made no attempt to punish even low level personnel until forced to do so by public outcry.
The behavior of this administration is so egregious it is hard to grasp their arrogance. Douglas Feith pushed very hard that the Inspector General not declare any illegality in his acts. As a result the talking points are that it was just a question of interpretation, and besides, why should we worry about man out of government for several years? This is symptomatic about unwillingness of the administration to be held accountable.
Let me return briefly to the Boston Globe editorial, for one more paragraph:
The most notorious instance of Bush crossing his fingers behind his back came in 2005 when Congress passed Senator John McCain's anti torture bill. Rather than incur the public relations black eye of rejecting the bill of a war hero and former prisoner of war, he quietly added a statement saying he would not be bound by it. He also used signing statements to exempt his administration from affirmative action hiring requirements and oversight provisions in the anti terror Patriot Act. He contested Congress's right to require that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency have qualifications for the job.
Remember, Bush fought against having the McCain provision enacted into law, negotiated for as weak a position as he could get, but even then refused to accept the results, as it has refused to accept results from the Courts: here think only of the shell game played with the 4th Circuit, a set of actions that so infuriated Michael Luttig that a man who had been on the shortlist for SCOTUS chose to publicly break with and chastise the administration.
The Globe editorial says it as bluntly as needs to be said in but one sentence:
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers , has begun an overdue investigation of any cases in which Bush has relied on signing statements to violate laws.
The investigation IS overdue, long overdue. And the assertion at the end of that sentence is accurate: the use of signing statements has been to violate laws.
By the time the President announced his "surge" it was already impossible for even an unanimous Congress to have stopped it: some troops were already being prepositioned, apparently the orders for the others had alrady been cut, and the administration had in hands sufficient funds for the action.
So far even those Democrats who are inclined to attempt to reassert the balance between the branches have chosen to move by increments, building a clear record, and hoping to persuade Republicans of good will (or at least those in electoral peril) and Democrats in marginal districts, as well as making the case so the press will help persuade the public at large.
Meanwhile the administration continues down its reckless path. I do not know whether it will take military action against Iran, although given its track record a bombing campaign seems increasingly likely. And in the event of such a course of action, is is even more likely that there will be a response against US interests by Iran, including quite possibly in the United States. It is that possibility that makes things a matter of immediate urgency, for I do not think anyone need doubt that were one such incident to occur it would be used by the administration as the basis for suspending civil liberties on a massive scale. I remember during the run-up to the 2004 election former General Shelton making a remark that if another 9-11 type of event were to happen we could well see the Constitution suspended.
Even if we do not reach such a perilous situation, the continual erosion of civil liberties, of respect for America and its institutions around the world, these are creating a set of facts on the ground that have the potential to permanently alter our nation and our society, and not for the better.
Starting hearings on signing statements is only beginning to draw the line. While I understand the rationale, I do not completely accept it. Congress needs to take a series of actions to lay down brightline markers of its understanding. It needs in legislative history establish a record of the intent and interpretation of each law it passes so that signing statements can be seen for what they are - a clear violation of the presidential oath to take care that the law be faithfully executed.
No senior official of the executive branch should be allowed to appear before Congress without being under oath. This administration has refused to treat Congress with any courtesy, or even with a recognition of its role as a coequal power. Therefore it is no longer entitled to a presumption of courtesy on the part of Congress, and I would hope we would see clear statements about this from major Congressional figures.
We can no longer have the kinds of dilatory tactics upon which this administration relies. When a Secretary Rice say she needs time before she can respond to a basic question from Senator Webb, the Senator should ask the committee to immediately pass a resolution that the response is due - in writing or in her sworn reappearance before the committee - within one week or else she and the administration will be considered non-responsive. It should not take longer than one week to announced what legal authority the administration believes it haves, unless this administration believes that its authority is unlimited and simply does not want to clearly say so.
I would be interested in hearing what others think. While I agree with Major Danby that a successful impeachment prosecution of VP Cheney might be possible, I think we are very far from that with the President. But I do believe that the Congress can draw some lines that are effective. By laying down markers, it can serve notice to people like military leaders that not all orders by this president and his minions are legal, and that as patriots and for their own sake they should give serious consideration as to how they can legally oppose him. Afte WWII we established that following orders is NOT a defense against charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. And certain actions contemplated by this administration could be classified as either or both of those categories, just as some actions already done in Iraq and elsewhere clearly can be encompassed in those categories.
I am not YET calling for impeachment. I am calling for establishing clearly, and as quickly as possible, the grounds on which impeachment would be justified. I consider that as important as anything else this Congress might do. This Congress was elected to restrain this administration, especially but not exclusively in its military adventurism. It cannot fulfill its responsibility to the American people until it is willing to act much more directly. And until it ends the atrocity ofr signing statements, no bill that it is able to pass with sufficient votes to withstand a presidential veto has any meaning if this president chooses to ignore it - unless the Congress makes clear that it will not tolerate such presidential misbehavior.
Those are my thoughts, my sad thoughts, for a Sunday morning. They are neither coherent nor cogent, for which I apologize. They are mine, and as such I am accountable for what I have written, which is more than I can say for the administration and its words and actions.
What say you?