about these unconstitutional signing statements in January 2006:
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.htmlThe Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
By JOHN W. DEAN
(snip)
Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements. His 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, assesses the uses and abuses of signing statements by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton (
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0700611800/findlaw-20). Cooper has updated his material in a recent essay for the Presidential Studies Quarterly, to encompass the use of signing statements by now-President Bush as well.
By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.
(snip)
Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.
(snip)
Even the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.
(snip)
John Dean ends this Jan 2006 essay with the optimistic comment that Bush will eventually rue all those unconstitutional signing statements because after Republicans lose control of the House or Senate, the "ire" of Congress over the Executive Branch ignorning its laws will result in "blowback." Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in the House has shown little spine about ANYTHING, let alone standing up to the clearly illegal and very dangerous actions of the Bush WH in issuing signing statements that effectively make him a dictator. Dean was wrong about balance being restored when Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. Further, when this eventually goes to the Supreme Court, the installation of the Bush judges openly supporting "unitary executive" - read "dictatorship" - threatens to overturn both crystal-clear judicial precedent AND, finally, the Constitution itself. One more Bush judge and it will happen. And the health of some of the five justices who stand against his four is fragile.
We must must must pressure Congress into fighting this blatant march to not only dictatorship, but insane, war-mongering, murderous, monstrously greedy dictatorship.
I would add that the signing statements are one part of the "legalization" of the overturning of constitutional democracy by the Bush White House. The other part of this "legalization" is the mass of EXECUTIVE ORDERS. The signing statements are mostly statements of how he'll IGNORE whatever in legally passed laws he doesn't like. The Executive Orders, on the other hand, state what he does plan to do, usually sweeping and obviously unconstitutional power grabs "justified" by "national security," ever a prime excuse of dictators. And they are MONSTROUS and mostly overlooked by the public.
Here is the White House web page with a compilation of Executive Orders:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/ordersHere are a few links to recent discussions on Executive Orders over the past few months. This is by no means a carefully selected batch - just a few that I had seen and bookmarked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1369934http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1376028http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1502078http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/04/2981/Oh yes, they do believe they can get away with all this. Here is Tony Snow, explaining early this year about how Bush has the ultimate power to determine what is constitutional and what is not. Events have shown that this jaw-dropping statement reflects the actual WH position:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2213034(Eric Brewer): "But isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?"
(Tony Snow):
"No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself." Finally, remember that there are also SECRET executive orders. About a week ago we were hearing how the Bush White House's plans for installing martial law in the event of a "crisis," including dissolving Congress of course, have been kept secret EVEN FROM CONGRESS. (Sorry, I didn't keep a link.)
When are they planning to move on this?