Why not a headline "Congress decrees the Constitution is for little people"? The Constitution grants the Commander-in-Chief authority to conduct war, not Congress. Bush is saying Congress overstepped its Constitutional bounds. Looking at the article it certainly seems a debatable point. I hardly think this qualifies as Bush placing himself above the law.
Stephen | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 3:14 pm | #

Nowhere in the Constitution is the president granted the powers of a dictator during wartime. What I want to know is why in everyone of these articles does the picture always show Bush in the foreground and Cheney smirking in the background watching everything he says and does? Is that a stock photo or is he always really there?
Michael | 01.31.08 - 3:19 pm | #

Stephen:

If Bush wanted to veto the law he could. Signing it and then exempting himself from what parts he likes is, well, tyranny. But this Administration has been behaving tyrannically for quite some time.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 3:58 pm | #

So, Mark, in your view, is there any limit on the power of Congress to dictate what the Executive branch can and cannot do? In other words, does the mere fact that Congress puts some limitation on the Executive power into a spending bill automatically make it Constitutionally binding on that branch of government?
joe | 01.31.08 - 3:59 pm | #

Joe:

There' this thing the Founder put in the Constitution called the "veto". If the Executive doesn't want to sign the bill into law he can "veto" it. If he signs it into law it's called a "law" and he should obey it.

You may remember the concept of "the rule of law" from the Clinton impeachment trial. Back then, conservatives said that was a good thing. Of course, now that "9/11 changed everything" many "conservatives" think things like "rule of law" and "intrinsic moral evil" are no bar to Their Guy doing whatever he wants. But I still think it advisable to obey both the law of God and (when it does not conflict with the law of God) the laws of men. If the President wants to challenge some law he has (mysteriously) signed into law, he can take it to the court. But simply arrogating to himself the power to exempt himself from any law not to his taste is what the Founders would have called "tyranny". It is amazing that such things have to be explained to so-called "conservatives Americans".
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 4:14 pm | #

Much ado about not much...

All the signing statements do is observe that the Executive has noticed a possible constitutional issue and lays out the executive's "legislative intent" in signing the bill. If the law is challenged in court as the constitution allows then the litigants have access to the reasoning of the congress through their committe reports and the executive through the signing statements.

The signing statement does not say the executive is not bound by the law, it says the executive shall enforce the law in accordance with the constitutional limits that already exist.
Chris-2-4 | 01.31.08 - 4:27 pm | #

Mark - You do rhetoric better than you do legal analysis. And I'm trying to be brutally honest, not mean spirited; if you take offense, accept my apology and I'll move along.
joe | 01.31.08 - 4:37 pm | #

I remember when conservatives were having cows when they felt that Clinton was circumventing Congress and the Constitutuion by issuing numerous Executive Orders enacting his agenda from day one of his first administration.

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."
-Paul Begala, Clinton aide, July 1998.

These signing statements are just another tool that the Imperial Unitary Executive is using to exercise his rule under our system. You argue that Congress can litigate the constitutionality of the President's actions in Court. Well the President can also argue against the constitutionality of the restrictions on his actions prior to taking those actions. But, the President will issue his signing statement, spend money on bases, send troops to new wars; and then when Congress or the Public protests or takes it to Court it will be "you people don't support the troops" or "you people are unpatriotic".

The only way to handle such usurpations of power (EO's or signing statements) is to impeach the usurper. But this won't happen, since both parties actually want the executive to have such powers for when their guy is sitting in the President's chair.

Eventually, just as the monarch in England lost all power to Parliment, Congress will turn over all of its powers to the Executive.
Marv Wood | 01.31.08 - 5:24 pm | #

Eventually?

My entire life in this "republic" has been under an ineffectual and weak-willed legislature.
Franklin Jennings | 01.31.08 - 5:34 pm | #

4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have."

6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 6:54 pm | #

I wonder whether any rebulic can exist for more than a few hundred years. The republic of Rome lasted, I think, about 500 years before it became an empire.
Louise | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 7:24 pm | #

I remember Begala's remark well. Conservatives were very upset. Apparently it was because they weren't holding the pen.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 7:53 pm | #

Apparently you don't care much about the truth, Mark. But then, why let the truth get in the way of another chance to throw some more poison and slander at the President, a man who has done more for freedom and human rights in the world than you will ever do? Why let the truth that we live in a messy world get in the way of your precious idealogical purity?
John Doman | 01.31.08 - 8:54 pm | #

The "messy world" excuse for trampling on the laws of God and man. An oldie but a goodie.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 10:22 pm | #

...we are ruled by a ruling class with mildly differing emphase whos main goal is aquiring more powes-r...

Whoa--I've though this since my first econ course at ISU, 1977.
Ignorant Redneck | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 10:54 pm | #

This is just silly.

Look, the law, as drafted in Congress, is very broad. It arguably--arguably--could forbid the president from having his staff talk to the Iraqi government about a permanent US presence in Iraq. Whether that's a good idea or not, the Congress doesn't have the power to limit the president's authority to engage in international negotiations. Now, does the law actually prohibit that? Who knows. (The Congress referred to "permanent" US bases--how does one tell those from long-term bases?) The president simply said he'd interpret it in such a way that the restriction wouldn't impinge on his constitutional authority.

The idea that a president must either veto or accept the most far-reaching potential interpretations of a statute is not suppported in the practice of the executive branch in history.
Thomas | 01.31.08 - 11:51 pm | #

n other words, does the mere fact that Congress puts some limitation on the Executive power into a spending bill automatically make it Constitutionally binding on that branch of government?

Uh, yeah. That's what Article I, section 9, clause 7 ("No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.") means. If Congress hasn't appropriated the money available for permanent bases in Iraq, the President can't set them up. (Well, I suppose he could let his friends at the Committee for the New American Centuryhold a bake sale, and if it raised enough money to fund such a base without using federal funds, then maybe Bush could operate the base that way.)
Seamus | 02.01.08 - 11:32 am | #

I remember when conservatives were having cows when they felt that Clinton was circumventing Congress and the Constitutuion by issuing numerous Executive Orders enacting his agenda from day one of his first administration.

A few of us Robert Taft Republicans still have cows when a president pulls stunts like that. Of course, Robert ("Mr. Republican") Taft would be drummed out of today's Republican party.
Seamus | 02.01.08 - 11:34 am | #

BDS in action... asserting authority as Commander in Chief as against Congressional attempts to micromanage the conduct of military affairs is not a dictatorial power grab. It's the customary and often beneficial tension between branches of govt that marks the greatness of our republican form of govt. Is it sometimes messy and does it sometimes produce bad effects. Sure. But until Original Sin is eliminated, any form of govt must needs have some defects.

Not all that Bush does is driven by evil power-grabbing, torture-promoting, anti-Catholic animus.

You'd be better off being more selective in your examples of the evil of Bush if you want to avoid the moniker of BDS.
Tom McKenna | Homepage | 02.01.08 - 11:45 am | #

Seamus, that's not quite right. If the Congress provides a general appropriation without restriction, then the money can be spent. More importantly, not every restriction on spending is constitutional. The Congress can't fire people by refusing to fund them, and the Congress can't tell the president that he can't spend money to talk to other governments. Or, more accurately, they can say it all they want, but the president needn't listen to them.
Thomas | 02.01.08 - 2:49 pm | #

Whether that's a good idea or not, the Congress doesn't have the power to limit the president's authority to engage in international negotiations.

Actually, it does. For decades, there was an Act of Congress prohibiting the president from spending any appropriated funds to establish an embassy to the Holy See. That statute had to be repealed before President Reagan could establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican. (Before that, presidents sent "personal envoys" to the pope, but not ambassadors.) Similarly, since shortly after the Civil War, there has been a statute prohibiting the use of any appropriated funds for negotiating any treaty with Indian tribes. (That's why dealings with Indian nations are all done by statute now.)

The Congress can't fire people by refusing to fund them, . . .

Actually, it can. In the early 1970s, Congress failed to appropriate any money for the Subversive Activities Control Board, which effectively put the members and employees of the Board out of work.
Seamus | 02.02.08 - 10:22 pm | #