If you were to do a quick search of my blog for the phrase '
signing statements', you would find a slew of posts dedicated to the topic. And while it may seem like I am just harping on what is at best a semantics issue to be debated amongst constitutional lawyers, my persistence is due the lack of any similar actions by those outside the blogosphere. This absence is a travesty, considering that these statements are quite possibly the worst affront to how our system of government operates.
For those needing a refresher in how our legislative process works, it goes something like this:
The Congress passes a bill and sends to the President, who then has two options available to him. He can either a) pass the bill as is and make it law or b) veto the bill, sending it back to Congress. Congress can then either make changes to the bill or override the President's veto with a 2/3 majority.
All previous presidents have adhered to this basic legislative procedure. A notable exception was President Clinton who for a short time possessed line-item veto authority until it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
As anyone who follows politics probably knows, Bush found himself a third option. He has made it a habit of attaching signing statements to just about every piece of legislation that crosses his desk. And while past presidents have also issued such statements, the scope and frequency of them increased multifold under the current president.
The prevailing theme for most of them has been that Bush will construe the provisions of the bill with his role as the "
unitary executive". Most of the provisions that these statements address are those which attempt to apply a limit or check on the presidency. So if Bush thinks certain provisions infringe on his authority as the "unitary executive", say a ban on torture or congressional notification, he is reserving the right to disregard those provisions.
The true nature of these statements was revealed yesterday when Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 some 19 days after it was passed by Congress. I
speculated last week that the delay was probably due to the need for the wording of the signing statement that would undoubtedly be attached to be just right.
Well turns out I was wrong. Because according to
Tony Snow, no signing statement will be issued this time. This seems rather strange because one excuse for the multitude of statements in the past has been the need for the President to clarify his interpretation of the legislation. Surely even if there are no provisions Bush objects to, he would still wish to issue a statement, if for no other reason then to once again state that he's The Decider?
But then again, what's not to like about this law? It gave Bush everything he could hope for and then some. He has been given immunity from any past violations of the War Crimes Act he may have committed. Abuses like those we saw at Abu Ghraib have now been legalized and even if those cheap suits McCain, Warner or Graham say 'no they aren't', Bush is now the final arbiter of what constitutes torture. Anyone, including US citizens, are now subject to indefinite detention at the President's whim. And most incredibly of all, Bush can now suspend habeas corpus, a power that even English kings did not possess.
As the title of this post says: An Unamerican Law Needs No Further Revisions.
They are to be saved for what little is left of the Constitution.
For more reactions see
Creature,
Swopa,
Shakes,
Mary,
Dan Froomkin,
Digby,
JB,
Olbermann,
Tbogg,
Lindsay Beyerstein,
Clammyc, and
Robert Parry.
Update: Looks as though I may have jumped the gun on there not being a need for a signing statement this time around.
As part of the new law, President Bush has the authority to interpret the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. The law calls for these interpretations to be rendered via an executive order.
Tony Snowjob brought it up at yesterday's press briefing. (h/t
windspike)
Q And the interpretations that were required by the law, that are to be published in an executive order --
MR. SNOW: What it says is the President is authorized to do an executive order. I'll read you the language in a moment. The President's senior advisors are going to make recommendations as to the appropriate steps. Once you have a law passed, then you have the people in the executive branch try to interpret how to make it happen. So there will be further consultations with Congress and consideration of additional legal guidelines in issuance of an executive order. So they're going to try to walk through all the --
Q It says the executive order is published in the Federal Register, right? Your intention is --
MR. SNOW: Let me just -- let me read to you, because -- I'll just read you the language. It sort of speaks for itself, but it's worth going through, with your forbearance. It says: "As provided by the Constitution in this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
"The President shall issue interpretations described by Sub-paragraph A" -- which I just read to you -- "by executive order published in the Federal Register. Any executive order published in this paragraph shall be authoritative except as to grave breaches under Common Article III," and so on. So that's the language.
Q So he does have to, then, publish an executive order, isn't that right?
MR. SNOW: Well, again -- well, we'll see. This says he's authorized to do so.
Take particular note of the word "shall" in the above exchange. Because I have a feeling that the issuance of any signing statement will hinge on the definition of that word. Some may try to say that it means the President is required to issue an order and file it with the Federal Register. Others may say that there is no such requirement. As Tony illustrated in the briefing, the administration is going with the latter definition.
But what if Congress intended the former? If it did, a signing statement is sure to be in the offing.
