Much has been made over the Bush administration's lack of respect. . .heck, acknowledgment of the existence. . .of the Constitution and the laws that orbit around it. Little appears to have come from the Bush presidency except, one would suspect, that George has left behind his Big Chief tablet and salami-sized pencil in favor of the Sharpie pen. What am I saying? Bush has practiced his penmanship to the peril of us all with his egregious use of "signing statements". President Clinton did it also, but not NEARLY to the extent that George has. Can we hope that part of the "change" that Obama and Hillary have been tossing around is the reversal of this trend? More on the flip. . .
To understand the impact of signing statements, it is helpful to put into context what they are and why they might matter. Cheryl Nyberg, at the University of Washington School of Law, defines it as follows:
A little-known legal document—the Presidential signing statement—has become the talk of the blogs. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, Jr. drafted a memo encouraging Presidential "interpretative signing statements" as a deputy assistant attorney general in 1986. And President Bush has issued more than 500 signing statements, many indicating how "the Administration" construes certain provisions.
How do these statements fit into the legislative and enactment process?
After both bodies of Congress have passed a bill, it is delivered to the White House. The President then either signifies his approval by signing the bill or vents his objections by vetoing it.
But in recent years, Presidents have added a new wrinkle by affixing signing statements with their signatures. According to a Jan. 23, 2006 article in TIME by Andrew Sullivan, Ronald Reagan issued 71 signing statements, Bill Clinton issued 105, and the current President Bush more than 500.
As you can see, signing statements are merely the "signer" (or in George's case, the "decider") stating what he/she feels is their interpretation of the document they are signing. Not necessarily a bad idea. . .until you begin to use them to rewrite laws on the fly as BushCo has been doing since he slid into office. For example:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Here's what George had to say about the DAA for FY 2008:
"Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.
Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President".
I've taken the liberty of adding emphasis on some important things to take notice of. For instance, the use of vague word "purport". The law is what it is. . .it says what it says. . .use of the word "purport" is only appropriate when the meaning of something is fuzzy. . .open to interpretation. . .not so in this instance. The more appropriate use of the word is "George Bush "purports" to give a *** about the country he is president of. See what I mean? Notice the difference?
Look at the words "faithfully executed". The one thing he has consistently done is to "faithfully execute". He has "faithfully executed" over 3966 of America's troops in an illegal war. . .looking for terrorists where they were not. . .like looking for your lost keys in a parking lot 4 miles from where you last saw them because the light is better. . ."faithfully executed" the hopes and dreams of the majority of Americans when it comes to pride in their country, promise of a safe land and belief that the man/woman who sits in the Oval Office is above sacrificing his country and its resources in pursuit of crony-ism and selfish gain. . ."faithfully executed" the first governmental surplus in over 4 decades. . .
Now, the use of the words "shall construe". This means that the Commander-In-Cheat is willfully choosing to impose his belief ON us and IN SPITE of us. Yes, the man who is now alone at the bottom of Presidential history with a 19% approval rating continues to thumb his nose at the remaining 81% of us who think he's full of crap.
My question is this, Senators Obama and Clinton. . .will you, if elected, stop this nonsensical practice of "the gospel according to. . ." and let the law be the law? George Bush has never let a silly thing known as "checks and balances" stand in the way of a good dismantling of the Constitution. Will you promise to reverse this trend? Will you, when you swear on that Bible to "uphold, defend and protect" the Constitution, promise to mean it and not to "construe" that to mean to "abridge, edit and rewrite" the Constitution?
Please. . .both of you. . .if you want to really bring change, promise that you'll end this insipid practice. And, oh yeah. . .will you "put it in writing"?
Cross-posted at politicaldiner.com