I.e., the president who believes his job is to uphold the law, except when he thinks he doesn’t need to because it’s not (in his opinion) constitutionally sound. Now, some…
I.e., the president who believes his job is to uphold the law, except when he thinks he doesn’t need to because it’s not (in his opinion) constitutionally sound.
Now, some folks might therefore challenge such laws in court. Bush simply notes that he thinks he doesn’t have to actually do it and, in some cases, simply doesn’t.
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are 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.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to “execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional.
It’s one reason, apparently, Bush never vetoes laws (or hasn’t thus far). Why get into a pissing match with Congress when he can simply decline to enforce provisions he deems he doesn’t have to.
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation’s sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files “signing statements” — official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
“He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened,” said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.
Many of the exceptions have involved military matters, which Bush has conveniently been able to draw on the “War on Terror” as a justification to do … well, pretty much as he pleases.
Which is great, I suppose, if you agree with him, and only a problem if you don’t right? Well, except that — assuming (as I do, but just to be provocative) that Bush considers a two-term limit or elections something he has to worry about — someday someone other than Bush will be in the White House. Maybe someone that those folks cheering on this sort of thing won’t be so happy about. Say, Hillary Clinton. By carving out so much executive power, Bush sets a precedent that every president — honest, dishonest, lovable, hatable, constructive, destructive — will be able to draw upon.
And … well, that’s why we have a constitutional republic, and not an elected monarch. Because you need to have controls on executive action more often than once every four years. Don’t you?
