Judiciary Committee Tackles Signing Statements
Senator Specter hauled an administration official (this time it was Michelle E. Boardman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel) before the Judiciary Committee yesterday to sit and take a lambasting for the Administration’s use of “signing statements” as an m.o. to get around provisions of the law they just don’t like (I’ve discussed signing statements before in the context of the anti-torture bill, and don’t like ‘em much myself). There is coverage of yesterday’s hearing in the CSM, NYT, and WaPo.
“There is a sense that the president has taken the signing statements far beyond the customary purviews. There’s a real issue here,” Specter began, “as to whether the president can, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like. Wouldn’t it be better, as a matter of comity, for the president to have come to the Congress and said, ‘I’d like to have this in the bill; I’d like to have these exceptions in the bill,’ so that we could have considered that?”
Specter grew frustrated at Boardman’s (lack of) answers and demanded written responses from her office. Boardman responded that because her office is currently flooded, it will “take a week.” Boardman argued that the use of signing statements is “not an abuse of power.” “Congress should not fear signing statements, but welcome the openness they provide,” she said. “The president must execute the law faithfully, but the Constitution is the highest law of the land. If the Constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose.” That’s funny, I always thought we kept the courts around for that sort of thing …
Senators Leahy and Kennedy (among others) were also sharply critical of the Administration’s position. Leahy suggested that the signing statements were what has kept Bush’s veto pen tightly capped: “The president hasn’t vetoed any bills, but basically he has done a personal veto. He has said which laws he will not follow and … put himself above the law, even the same law he has signed.”
Kennedy asked Boardman for a list of all the bills on which Bush has issued signing statements (more than 750, by a recent estimate). She told him “I cannot give you that list,” to which he replied “No, then who can? Is there any way for the public to know the president has made a judgment that he is not going to enforce a law?” Boardman’s status also came in for some criticism; Leahy commented that the Administration should have dispatched “anybody who would have authority to speak on this. But then, considering the fact that they’re using basically an extra-constitutional, extra-judicial step to enhance the power of the president, it’s not unusual.”
Now, some of those in attendance were underwhelmed; Senator Cornyn brushed it off by saying “This is a fascinating topic, mainly something law students and lawyers can love. As a practical matter, I don’t know what impact it has…. It promotes public discourse and discussion about what the roles of the legislative branch and the executive branch are.” He added of the use of presidential statements “It is precedented. It’s not new.” Georgetown law prof Nicholas Rosenkrantz called what he termed the “recent brouhaha” over signing statements “largely unwarranted.”
I am inclined to disagree with Rosenkrantz; taken as part of a whole, the recent ballooning use of signing statements seems in fact quite worthy of discussion, as the Administration continues to arrogate more and more powers to itself at the expense of the legislature and the courts. It is positively striking to hear an Administration official say “If the Constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose.” That’s a troubling statement when our system of separated powers is balanced so precariously: if the executive chooses his own interpretation of the Constitution, he might just as well make the laws himself too. Not on my watch.
Good for the Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing, and once again I call upon them to keep this issue alive, keep demanding the answers and don’t shut up until you get them.
8 Responses to “Judiciary Committee Tackles Signing Statements”
I don’t know when signing statements came into being, but the use of them is disturbing to say the least and I tend to think as the most dangerous threat (aside from Bush/Cheney/Rove) to our constitution and American way of life.
It is obvious that this administration used them to circumvent congressional authority to make the laws.
If you go back to high school Civics 101 and how a bill is made into a law that the President either signs or vetos. The veto power is the presidents way of his check and balance to the legistative. Congress can choose to overide the veto and it is the legislatives way of check and balance.
That is the system that our founding fathers devised and is what has helped to keep this country together and strong.
Bush’s process will ultimately come to destroy our country, he is definately the modern day version of Rome’s Nero and Bush and his all to willing coherts will all be fiddling as we burn and go down the tubes. Remember the Roman empire waa destroyed from within, history has a way of repeating itself, are we ready to go the way of Rome? I hope not.
It is about time that Congress is at least looking at the presidents practice of nullifying the intents and purpose of congress. I don’t have any faith whatsoever in Specter he talks big but always caves to the adminstration, but at least by this pratice coming to the light of day some good may eventually come out of these hearings.
Tom, I think this is the means by which Bush/Rove/Cheney are a serious threat to America.
“”This is a fascinating topic, mainly something law students and lawyers can love. As a practical matter, I don’t know what impact it has….”
I’d say that’s an example of failing to “connect the dots.” Large structural shifts in power—and that’s exactly what Bush’s new precedent of regular end-runs around congress’ decisions represents— have profound, wide-reaching consequences for policy and governance.
History is full of lessons that centralized executive power, divorced from accountability, yields disastrous effects for societies. It’s a shame the current regime, in its short-sighted rush to consolidate power, hasn’t learned those lessons.
p.s. Senator Cornyn, the importance and wide-reaching significance of the balance of power between government branches isn’t an obscure matter for law students and legal scholars. It’s something seen as important and relevant enough to be included in basic elementary education civics classes.
Once again, the right is acting like they will never be out of power. Either this is dellusional, or they have arranged with the media and Diebold to make sure this is true.
That would be playing with fire.
Imagine fighting in Afganastan, Iraq and the homegrown civil war. I doubt Mexico would even want to invade what was left.
Don’t think so? Consider this. On those “far left wacko” boards, die hard tree-hugggers are asking the veterns about what kind of assualt rifles do they recomend. There is univeral agreement that maybe the framers of the constitution were right about the 2nd amendment.
Any wholesale negating of the election process in 2006 will result in open insurection in this country.
That said, I think the Republicans are jsut acting like fools. Look for the nattering nabobs to start screaming about presidential excesses 5 minutes after the new Democratic president is sworn in.
You know its true.
From a free speech point of view, I think signing statements are just fine. Let the president say whatever he wants to. However, congress should make it clear that regardless of what the president says, the law is the law and if he disregards it or ignores it, he will be held accountable. It is not his job to decide what is and is not the law. It is his job to enforce the laws as defined by congress. If he thinks a law (or part of a law) is unconstitutional, then he should veto the bill or make a case before the supreme court.
The problem, ultimately, is that congress has not held this president accountable for his actions and has shown no inclination in doing so in the future, signing statements or no.
John Carter you are spot on! But what did you expect when all three branches of government are controlled by the same party? Also, consolidation of power has occurred within the Conservative wing of the Republican party so there is little dissent within the party.
I do remember reading that the Republicans sought to establish a permanent ruling majority in Washington, and believe Tom Delay’s K Street project was a link in accomplishing just that. With money flowing in from corporate America to Republican candidates, the Dems would be a day late and a dollar short. Delay also tried radical redistricting in his home state of Texas to keep the Republicans in power. Thing is, they didn’t count on the war in Iraq being so unpopular with the American people, or Bush’s poor response to Katrina.
I am appalled at the lack of attention this subject has received. I am also disappointed at the level of understanding displayed by those who discuss it… including myself.
However, by googling about I have discovered the means by which anybody with the time and inclination can really nail this!
First, somebody needs to define what a signing statement is. I believe it has become customary for Presidents to issue a signing statement every time he signs something into law when he wishes to remark about that particular law.
Bush has redefined this custom. Bush uses these to itemize the parts of the law he thinks he is immune to. Clinton did it too…when he perceived Congress had overstepped their bounds.
But one only needs to read a few of these (both Clinton’s and Bush’s) to see the differences. It’s amazing!
These signing statements expose the current administration’s agenda more than the Downing Street Memos, more than the disinformation about the Iraq war that the press so gleefully delivered to a gullible audience, more than the piece meal exposure of the administration’s willingness to ignore the Bill of Rights. This is the core… from which all else emanates.
See http://aliberallibertarian.blogspot.com/
I’ve posted examples of a couple of Clinton’s signing statements, and a couple of Bush’s to illustrate the contrasts. Links are there for somebody smarter than me to do a deeper analysis.
Let’s keep this in the public eye. It’s important!
Perhaps it’s time that Congress calls the President’s bluff. He has avoided a veto by issuing signing statements.
Congress could bring the issue to a head by inserting the following provision into a bill, any bill:
“This act shall become law only upon the unconditional and unequivocal signature of the President.”
I know, dream on.
PING:
TITLE: Orwell and Good
BLOG NAME: The Heretik
White House summons Orwell in defense of signing statements. Black really is white.
Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the statements were “not an abuse of power.”
Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has th…
PING:
TITLE: Will Specter Sue Bush?
BLOG NAME: Everything Between
I mentioned Sen. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter’s (R-Pa.) disgust with the president’s signing statements in my post yesterday and today have discovered the links I could not find in which Specter suggests that Congress sue Bush…