Above the Law

[Bravus]

From Salon.com:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

We knew that George W. Bush has used signing statements to declare his freedom to disregard acts of Congress, but we’ll admit to having had no idea that the practice was this pervasive: According to a Boston Globe analysis, Bush has “quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.”

Bush’s signing statements first drew our attention when he signed away the prohibition against torture in the prohibition against torture Congress passed last year. Then he did it again after Congress reupped the Patriot Act, purporting to sign out of the legislation’s provisions that would have made congressional oversight possible.

We assumed that these were relatively rare acts, reserved for legislation that got at the heart of Bush’s war on terrorism. But the Globe says that Bush has declared himself free to ignore all sorts of laws, including but not limited to “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 White House says Bush is just doing what other presidents have done. The Globe says that’s not so. The president, the paper says, has been “far more” aggressive “than any predecessor” in “declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws.”

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/01/signing/index.html

[Dr. Shane]

The Boston Globe and New York Times are the two most liberal papers in the US. They are followed closely by the Washington Post and LA Times although the LA Times has started to reform itself slightly. So we need to "consider the source" in such charges.

If the media is interested in an honest prespective they will review the policies of President Wilson during the First World War and the policies of President Roosevelt during the Second World War. Such a comparison will show the current administration as being quite tame.

Presidents and Congress have fought back and forth in regard to the amount of power Congress has to limit the President's power as Commander in Chief. That is what is at issue here. The President can disregard a law made by Congress if he or she believes Congress has exceded their Constitutional authority in making the law. When such an event happens, Congress can bring the case before the Supreme Court for the Court to rule who is right - Congress or the President. If the Court rules that Congress is in the right and the President still continues to disregard the law, then the President is placing himself above the law and subject to impreachment.

[Bravus]

I recognise the sources, but surely this is a quantifiable question. Do the signing statements exist, and are there many more of them than for prior presidents? It's just a factual question, although of course it can be spun. Surely Bush is not arguing that this Congress - which has pretty much rolled over onto its back to have him rub its belly - has exceeded its authority so egregiously that he has to over-ride it 750 times? No, this is the playing out of the doctrine of supreme executive power, of presidency as unconstrained authority.

[Dr. Shane]

The issues I am aware of are the War Powers Act of 1973 and 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Presidents that have served since these acts were passed have objected to them as infringing on their power as Commander in Cheif. I am not aware they have been brought before the Supreme Court.

Both the Roosevelt and Wilson administrations trampled on individual and civil rights during their administrations and respective wars. I can't imagine the current administration has committed such grevious acts as either of those two did.

I don't get too excited about partisan attacks or allegations. During the Clinton Administration I heard dozens of such alligetions on conservative talk radio and only the obstruction of justice charge was legitimate.

Often times in politics one just wants to make alligations because just to get people discussing it does political damage. This is a dirty trick canidates have done on campaigns that I have worked on. It is quite common. The idea is to leak something bad to the press to get people talking. It is most effective if one can make their opponent defend themselves against the charge. The more time people spend discussing it, the more political damage is done. It doesn't matter if there is any truth to it at all.

So I will wait and see first if any of the main news networks pick up the story and then see if it has a life of more than a week. If it does, then I will look at it more seriously.

[Tom Wetmore]

Here's an idea, Shane. Before you go off on a shooting the messenger spree in wild-eyed defense of Dubbya, why don't you read the full Boston Globe article. I have conveniently linked to it and a companion sidebar item in my topic entitled If Bush is the Worst, How bad is he really?

It seems rather fair and blanced to me and covers comparisons with other administrations and many more examples of what they are talking about.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Whenever a bias source reports a scandel I consider the source. I consider the Boston Globe as bias as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hanity. So my policy is wait and see. I am not going to rush to judgement because of something the Boston Globe or Rush Limbaugh has to say.

[Dr. Shane]

What I do know is that the President has authorized some mild forms of torture which some in Congress do not approve of. Due to the media coverage of that, it has been discontinued. The President claims authority to do such because of his position of Commander in Cheif. His position is that for Congress to limit his authority as Commander in Cheif is a violation of the seperation of powers. (Personally, I am against torture)

I also know the President has ordered wire tapping of calls made to or from forgien countries. Some in Congress have expressed disapproval of that too however the Bush Administration did breif Congressional leaders on the program. The President also takes the position that he has the Constitutional authority to do this as Commander in Cheif and due to the seperation of powers clause, Congress does not have the authority to limit him. My issue with it is that he did not recieve warrents. I believe the President's authority in this respect is limitted by the Constitution more so than the Congress. Certainly any information gained in such wire taps should not be admisable in court. The issue needs to be taken before the Supreme Court.

I am not aware of others although I am sure there are. The seperation of powers grants certain authority to Congress, other authority to the Supreme Court and yet other authority to the President. Each tends to overstep its bounds from time to time. I have an issue with the President submitting a budget to Congress every year when the authority to tax and appropriate money lies with Congress, not the President. The budget should originate in Congress. They should then meet with the President to make sure it will not meet a veto. And obviously Roe v. Wade is the classic example of the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds.