Senate Judiciary Committee to Hold Signing Statement Hearing
by TChris
Now that public support for the president has weakened, Sen. Arlen Specter seems to have rediscovered one of the central tasks of the legislature: to act as a check against the executive by exercising oversight of presidential power.
''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview.
Some need? There's been a compelling need for half a decade. Where have you been, Senator?
Specter says the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings in July "into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years." We can predict that Attorney General Gonzales will haul out one of the administration's standard responses: the president's power to protect the nation (from whatever) is limitless, and his interpretations of the Constitution are more important than those of Congress or the courts.
Over the past five years, Bush has stated that he can defy any statute that conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. In many instances, Bush cited his role as head of the executive branch or as commander in chief to justify the exemption.
Bush made these claims in "signing statements," representing the president's take on laws he doesn't want to veto but doesn't want to follow. Justice Alito has signaled his willingness to give some weight to signing statements, while most legal scholars think the president's interpretation of a law has little to do with the law's meaning. Few believe that the president has the authority to decide that a bill he's signing into law is unconstitutional as applied to the executive. The president should veto a bill if he really believes it's unconsitutional (he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, after all), or he should let the courts decide. But that's not President Bush's style.
Bush is also the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, an act that gives public notice that he is rejecting a law and can be overridden by Congress. Instead, Bush has used signing statements to declare that he can bypass numerous provisions in new laws. ...
''The problem is that you have a statute, which Congress has passed, and then the signing statements negate that statute," Specter said. ''And there are more and more of them coming. If the president doesn't like something, he puts a signing statement on it."
Specter added: ''He put a signing statement on the Patriot Act. He put a signing statement on the torture issue. It's a very blatant encroachment on [Congress's constitutional] powers. If he doesn't like the bill, let him veto it."
Senator Feingold sums it up:
''Unfortunately, the president's signing statement on the Patriot Act is hardly the first time that he has shown a disrespect for the rule of law," Feingold said. ''The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that the president has used signing statements to reserve the right to break the law more than 750 times."
| < Waiting to Die | Abramoff Visit Records Incomplete > |
