Our Activist President

Back in January, I wrote about Bush’s knack to essentially avoid following the laws to which he signs his name, with what are now affectionately called “signing statements.”

Most are familiar with this political maneuvering, but for those who aren’t, Rachael Maddow explains:

Audio:

It should be noted that other presidents have used signing statements in the past. What makes the Bush Administration so slimy and in effect, completely hypocritical, is that the President will not only publicly support the bills he signs into law, he’ll openly use words that show his rabid enthusiasm for said laws in order to demonstrate to everyone he agrees with that particular policy.

For example – in the link cited above, Bush proudly proclaimed “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example," on June 26, 2003. Heck, he later signed the bill drafted in part by a torturee himself, one John McCain. Sounds pretty decent, right?

Well, take a look at the accompanying signing statement, and you’ll discover that it excuses Bush from following the law. In effect, it says “we can torture whenever we feel those being tortured threaten national security.” Consider the incredibly wide net this president has cast to justify other violations of the law in the name of “national security,” and you’ll understand where this is going. Therefore, torturing is illegal, except when we need to torture.

That’s like saying, "speeding is illegal - except when I’m late for work."

So as the freedom-loving Bush supporters continue to make excuses for the president who is taking away freedoms by violating the very laws he signs, other Americans who value the constitution are a little concerned, especially after this recent Boston Globe article, of which I suggest reading immediately:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws
enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional…Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the
law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

…Twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving
Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill
that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

Read on.

So what are some examples of laws you thought your President swore to uphold but really had his fingers crossed behind his back?

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.


Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.


Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.


Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)


Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.


Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."


As I have said before, other presidents have used this quietly kept Constitutional loophole, so it's fair to ask how Bush compares to others who used the signing statement clause:









You’ll remember that in order to give the few Americans that still support him a nice, empty bumper-sticker slogan from which to spit ammunition, the Bush PR team invented the phrase “activist judges.” By “activist,” Bush is implying that federal judges are overstepping their bounds by going above their role as the judiciary, and playing the role of Congress by actually ignoring the laws they pass. He warns that this breach of Congressional authority should not only be stopped, but it poses a threat to the integrity of our government.

I’ll let you write your own punch line to this one.