|
|
 |
||||||
 |
Opinion Across The Fence Bush revs up imperial presidency The subject of signing statements was first brought to my attention in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, assault on America.
At that time, I had removed myself from the world of journalism in search of a more lucrative career, so the term was new to me. But its implications were intriguing and frightening. My mind soon began wandering back down old trail systems where I had once dedicated myself to finding truths about politics, public opinion and the workings of our democratic system of government. Signing statements aren't a new anomaly in American politics. Research indicates that they can be traced to James Monroe. Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk and Ulysses S. Grant. In most of those early cases, the statements included the signer's concerns, questions, doubts or methods of procedure for executing the legislation at hand. In more recent times, statements were also used by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. An article published in the Boston Globe on April 30, 2006, asserted, "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office." In a clarification issued on May 4, 2006, the Globe noted that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but "has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills." Bush hasn't issued the most statements; Clinton holds that distinction. But the problem isn't with the number of statements, it's about what the statements assert. Bush frequently cites specific sections of the legislation to which he is responding. For example, the President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006," refers to Sections 8007, 8011 and 8093, when he says, "The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President." In response to a section prohibiting the transfer of Department of Defense funds to another nation without congressional notification, he wrote, "The executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief." Another 16 or so sections in this particular law also were targeted for similar statements. In the most basic analysis, it appears that President Bush is wielding his executive branch powers, particularly those as commander in chief, to circumvent Congress. If you doubt, take note of his response to the McCain Amendment, negotiated with Congress and written specifically to prohibit torture of political prisoners. Many statements, including those related to FISA, grant parts of government and some corporations engaged in assisting those departments, immunity from laws related to illegal searches, seizures and wiretaps. In her article in The New York Review of Books titled "Power Grab," Elizabeth Drew wrote: "He has unilaterally overruled Congress on a broad range of matters, refusing, for example, to accept a requirement for more diversity in awarding government science scholarships. … Moreover, he has refused to enforce laws protecting whistle-blowers and providing safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Bush has also used signing statements to place severe limits on the inspectors general created by Congress to oversee federal activities, including two officials who were supposed to inspect and report to Congress on the U.S. occupation of Iraq." There are legitimate constitutional weapons at the president's disposal in the frequent frays between the executive and legislative branches of government. The most familiar is a veto. But that move is both public and risky. Signing statements, on the other hand, usually fall below the public's radar and are much more difficult to challenge. Although he has frequently threatened a veto, Bush has issued only four. After the attacks on 9-11, Americans were uncertain and panic could easily have become pandemonium. The president was right to take steps to reassure the public and to issue a strong response to defend our country. But Bush has gone too far. We're currently engaged in a war that was based on lies. Our personal freedoms, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, are being eroded in the name of "national security," and the balance of power established by the Constitution is being destroyed by a president who claims extensive and unyielding unitary powers as commander in chief. If the American people allow the pattern of signing statements to continue uncensored, and allow the next president to do anything he or she wants, regardless of what the laws say, then we will no longer have a democracy. We will have a dictatorship. Kathie Greer: Columnist and consultant for the Amarillo Independent. She can be reached at kathie@amarilloindy.com. E-mail
comments about this story Posted: February 28, 2008
|
|
