Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress

So did I... but it needs to be brought to light.

Maybe if the AP picks it up people will start taking this egregious abuse of power seriously.

It's important that it come back up given Arlen Specter's statements yesterday that they are close to a deal on warrant less wire taping legislation.

Isn't this old news though? I read about this weeks ago.

Part of the reason this is news is that Congress is opening hearings on the issue.

(I seeded my link an hour and half before this one... but alas zero comments.)

laws have changed since then my friend

How many presidents have added signing statements to over 700 laws?

I'd be interested to find out.

Oh, and before you castigate me, do your research on the Executive Branch during WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.

My parents are part of the World War II generation and they still castigate FDR for executive overreach. Your man is made of straw. It is perfectly fine (and even patriotic) to voice such criticism.

And the article is perfectly right, this isn't anything new. Neither is warrantless wiretapping. And nor is much else he does.

You are clearly the one who needs to do more research. For example, warrantless wiretapping, you need to a little research into to a Federal law that criminalizes wiretapping without a warrant, FISA, needless to say it wasnt in effect during the other wars you cite.

Of course, FISA was passed precisely because of abuses of power by Presidents in the past.

Finally I hate to break it to you but the so called war on terror isnt really much like WWI or WWII or even Vietnam. Its a lot more like the cold war, which by the way never had a President claiming the right to violate federal criminal provisions. Neither did the Presidents during their conflict claim the right to torture prisoners in violation of treaty and federal laws.

Why dont you show some of your precious research you allege to have done? Sure there have been some abuses in the past, but that doesnt make them right either. The claim this is exactly the same, is pure fantasy.

Throw me the that column, too.

Me third

Ditto!

whats the point of the laws then?

Slavery has been done before too, so let's just revert back to those times. It's a horrible argument.

He has never shown much respect for the laws of the nation he leads. Here we see how he goes about avoiding them. Ask him and I'm sure he'll tell you he needs to do it to protect us.

This administration is shameful.

The point isn't that he did circumvent the law, it's that he has pretty much said "I can break this law if I want to." The whole point of the law was that he couldn't allow torture, and yet in the process of signing this law he's said that he can allow torture. So what good is the law, then?

Like others have said, the signing statement isn't a recent development. It's clear that he wrote it, and it's clear that the person who wrote the law thinks that it's in direct violation of the spirit of the law. So we do understand the issue. The new development is the hearings looking into the validity of these signing statements.

Call that typical Associated Press behavior... and if you read further down, it does cite some legislation, while also noting that he has challenged 750 statutes... don't expect any news source to waste their finite amount of space with that list.

The particular law mentioned was McCain's anti torture bill. It is being ignored one presumes, but by it's nature good info is not available. nikitab don't you think you're overreacting to what seem reasonable concerns about this practice? No one but you has said burn Bush... they are saying he's abusing his power. How is impeachment to be talked about if criticism of Bush's behaviour is unacceptable on the grounds that "if he abuses his power he can be impeached"? You're asking for a Catch 22.

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.

From the article I saw and seeded when the story first broke in early May.

I am not overreacting... yet... just trying to understand what the fuss is all about. I remember a thread on NV about wiretapping (sorry, don't have a link) where there was a lot of fury initially, which, once people starting dissecting what's going on, it turned out that, while there was reason for concern, the situation was not nearly as grave as initially presented.

So my question stands. Suppose that Bush feels at a certain point that, for national interests, he must break some law. The congress finds out, feels that this was inappropriate abuse of power, what happens then? Can the supreme court find Bush in violation of law? Would Bush not get thrown out?

A Supreme Court could. This Supreme Court wouldn't. Hence all the hubbub.

Is that a Justice in your pocket or are you happy to see us?

Why is this supreme court different? I think if Bush is clearly in violation, this supreme court, which has judges, which were approved by the senate, will have no qualms about kicking him out.

The point is that yes the courts decide what the laws are but only after the said law has been challenged. By that time, Bush has already broken the law and Congress has taken him to task for it. By that time, our civil liberties have already been violated and by the time we find out about it, he's gone to establish his Presidential library in Texas somewhere. These signing statements basically give him a blank check to do what he wants. You've heard the expression "kill em all and let God sort them out."? Bush's motto seems to be "break all the laws, and let the courts sort it out."

Phaedrus, you surprise me. Whatever happened to the checks and balances? Has he actually broken any laws? Or do you think he is setting himself up to break them all at once for no particular reason?

What happened to checks and balances indeed! Signing statements circumvent the check and balance of veto power and congressional override - not only once or twice, but challenging 750 statutes?!? That is ludicrous. How can anyone be calm about the President essentially obstructing government?

I've got a sinking suspicion that not only is he setting himself up to break laws, but that he's retroactively covering violations that the American people dont even know about.

What happened to the checks and balances? That's exactly my question. Bush doesn't believe in checks and balances. There are those who have been saying that Bush HAS broken laws, in domestic wiretapping, for one. Look, I'm known around here as one of the biggest conservative Republican voices, but even I can see when Bush is clearly wrong and dangerous. Shouldn't you be able to do so as well?

Here's an analogy. Speed limits. What if all of America was allowed to make a signing statement saying that we fully endorse these speed limits but we reserve the right to beak the limits at any time, for whatever reason we see fit? Don't you see how anarchic that would be? Bush is loudly proclaiming his support for these laws he is signing, all the while quietly reserving the right not to have to follow them. That is an end run around checks and balances. I bet he has a signing statement reserving the right to resort the US to a dictatorship. Apparently the fact that he hasn't actually declared himself to be a dictator yet, is good enough for you. Some of us don't like him or any President having that power for himself.

Phaedrus, are you suggesting that if the Supreme court finds him in violation, he is not going to be checked?

I think a more appropriate analogy may be "All of America signs endorsement of speed limits, but, under extreme circumstances such as a medical emergency, the law may be broken."

nikitab, the point is that by the time the Supreme Court checks him, the damage is already done. By that time he has already broken the law. By your thinking, murder is ok, because after all the courts are gonna check the murderer eventually. The point is that by that time there are dead people. By the time the Supreme Court checks Bush, his damage is already done. Get it now?

So you don't trust the elected president to make the decisions under critical circumstances? And, by that token, shall we remove all the guns in the US so that nobody dies from them? Bush is doing a job. He needs tools to do that job and in times of crises, he needs tools that give him more power, but which may result in harsher punishment if he misuses them. That only seems rational.

Bush Not only claims the right to ignore portions of laws, but to also keep those occassions secret

I will also add that not only has Bush said that he can ignore the law, but that he can keep it secret if he does so and criminalize any disclosure of it.

Of laws he has already ignored: Criminal provisions of FISA, making it illegal to wiretap any conversation where one of the parties is in the US without a warrant (he also lied repeatedly during the 2004 re-election campaign, saying his adminstration always did get warrants despite having not done so in many cases since 2001)

He ignored the provisions of FISA that required the President to keep the full Intelligence committee informed about actions not complying with FISA.

Its classified whether he has in fact violated the law regarding treatment of detainees (again he lied when he said America does not torture or send people to countries that do).

nikitab, you totally misunderstand the concept of checks and balances. The founding fathers knew that we shouldn't HAVE to trust our elected leaders and the President in particular. That is why they put checks and balances in place, to take the trust aspect out of it. Our system of governance was not made for a President who bypasses laws and when called on it, he just smiles and says, "Trust me." I bet the Germans trusted Hitler as well. Look at what he did with that trust.

Government of laws, and not of men. - John Adams

The Bush administration turns this fundamental principle of American government on its head, making it the whim of men, what portions of the laws to follow.

Catch, I wish I had that link to the wiretapping NV thread. Things were shown not to be as dramatic as you make it sound. Torture - I think, by comparison, what we do is not torture.

Q: How long before Bush's actions are disclosed? He can keep them secret, but they are declassified at some point in time, are they not?

Phaedrus, you just compared Bush to Hitler. Holy crap. YOU of all people, man! We elect these people to run the country and the system of checks and balances implies that there is a system in place to prevent abuse of power. That system can be either immediate control or consequences for making mistakes. In this case, the president says "If there are dire circumstances, I can circumvent the existing law and you can judge me later" - I see nothing wrong with this so long as there is eventual accountability.

No I did not compare Bush to Hitler. I said that in this country, we don't 'trust' our leaders. That's why we have checks and balances.

So in your opinion, Bush could do absolutely anything he wants to. He could nuke the entire middle east, he could round up all Arab Americans, as long as he is eventually brought to justice, then it's all ok. No, Nikitab, that is not how our system works. The system of checks and balances is there to prevent abuses of power, not mitigate for them once they have occurred. Again, it sounds to me like you are perfectly fine with murder as long as the murderer is brought to justice. I would much rather prevent the murder in the first place.

"If there are dire circumstances, I can circumvent the existing law and you can judge me later"

No, no, no, that is not how our system of government works. Bush is circumventing the law in certain circumstances and he should not be allowed to do so, whether or not he is ever judged later. This is not a matter of opinion. It's called the Constitution of the United States of America. Read it.

Damn Phaedrus, right on! You brought a can of whoop-ass into this thread. Nice.

Man, Phaedrus, I am starting to understand how the liberals feel in arguing with you. If it's not white, then it must be black? Trusting Bush is not going to create a Hitler. Nor will it result in nuking the Middle East - while he can potentially circumvent the law for security's sake, there is still a limit. I am saying that there is a gray area when we must have some trust for the leaders in order for them to be effective at their jobs.

Guns: do you outlaw all guns? No, you don't. You institute a system of punishment even though this pretty much guarantees some deaths from guns.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose that you are the president of the US. You have a terrorist who you know for a fact has planted a bomb under some child care throughout the US. You have signed a law against torture, but you know that, in this case, that is the only way you can retrieve the information. What do you do?

As far as I can see, Bush has only acted in our interests. There have not been abuses of power to date that had detrimental results. I don't know what he said when he signed those statements, but I would be careful to condemn him without knowing the full scale of implications.

Damn Phaedrus, right on! You brought a can of whoop-ass into this thread. Nice.

Indeed. Nice line of argument, Phaedrus. (And I'm not saying that just because I agree with what you're saying, but because it's the right argument to make. The issue of Rule of Law when it comes to executive power is a non-partisan issue, no matter who's president.)

That's right Aine! Wait, let me try: Woohoo!!! Guys, Bush sucks ass! Phaedrus, we don't know much bout the system, but Bush signing a piece of paper must mean he's gonna kill millions of people just cause hiz naim there iz BUSH. haha. BUSH BUSH! Four letter word! Oh yea. And, Aine, sheeet, that signing of a little peace of that there paper surely undermines the rule of law cause now that bastard can just go an kill all of dem civell... cybill... dem folk who don't fight gainst us. His generals will open a can of whoop-ass on dem innoc... innascent Iraqis. And we ain't gonna make exceptions for that there ugly sonufabeetch cause he'll sherly be a Hitler. Yea. I just wanna mention Hitler gain cause it's relevant. Yeah! HITLER!!! hehe... hehe... Let's go kick some pink kittens, guys!

Gimme a break guys. I mean I am all Rule of Law, but even this rule needs to stand to reason. Did I ever suggested that he can go do whatever he wants? No. What I am suggesting is that your condemnation is far too rapid and far too poorly substantiated from where I see (which is a fairly ignorant position, btw). Perhaps it would be constructive to take a specific law and discuss that instead?

I trust Bush and his administration. Perhaps that's why I am willing to let him do his job the way he feels it should be done. Perhaps I trust him too much. But the problem is that, and this is one of the downfalls of a largely uneducated democratic society, political dynamics can completely kill efficiency of the system. I think right now are incredibly dangerous times - a crossroads when, if the wrong course is chosen, there will be hell to pay afterwards. Am I an unfortunate product of Bush's sick terror propaganda campaign? I don't think so. Iraq was a reality. Iran is a reality. What happens in our lifetime is going to define the world for a long time to come.

er... I am all FOR rule of law. BTW, Aine, I didn't mean to pick on you. Feel free to substitute RobK for your name.

nikitab, it doesn't have to be a black and white issue. The point is that Bush is allowing himself to break these laws. You have put your trust in him that he would only do that if necessary, but by that logic we may as well have a dictatorship. If we trust the President enough that we allow him to break the law "if necessary", then why do we need checks and balances at all? That's clearly not what our founding fathers had in mind. The veto system was intended to be the method by which a President can influence the laws. If he doesn't like a law, he should veto it and get Congress to change the law so that he agrees with it. It is Congress's job to write the laws. It is the President's job to approve them. Bush has decided he is going to amend these laws without Congress's consent. That's a clear violation of the constitution.

As other people pointed out, signing statements are meant to be clarifications, not changes in meaning. The torture law was intended to ban torture. He changed it so that it's still legal if he decides it's necessary. It's no longer the same law. He doesn't have that power, but he's trying to pretend he does.

nikitab, I'm happy for you that you trust Bush. I distrust all Presidents and so did the founding fathers of this country. They distrusted national leaders so much that they effectively limited what they can and can not do. They distrusted them so much, from past experience with royalty, that they created a system of checks and balances, a system which Bush is undermining at every turn. Bush is showing time and time again, that he doesn't care one iota for checks and balances. He can do what he wants, and he is gonna damn well do it, consequences be damned. By the time the courts call him on it, he will be long gone and the next President can deal with the repercussions. It's really cute that you trust this President, but let me ask you, would you have trusted Clinton with the same latitude? I venture a guess that you wouldn't. You are saying in effect, that yes Bush is saying he can do what he wants to, but hey I trust him. He's not gonna do anything he shouldn't. As I said, our system of governance was not built on trust. Our system was built on the principle that individual people can and will be corrupted for the purposes of power and that this must be guarded against. It's all right there in black and white for you in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and many other written records left by the founding fathers. I'm not making this stuff up, nikitab. You and I have agreed on numerous former occasions, but I'm sorry to say not this time.

nikitab: Quite frankly, other than to make the implication that I must think all Bush supporters are hicks and rednecks or something, I can't even think of a legitimate reason why you'd write that first paragraph the way you did.

FYI, contrary to your implied belief that I must think that Bush supporters or southerners are all illiterate rednecks or something, I've never made fun of the way they (or anyone else) talks... that's just not my style, and I'm a lot smarter than to stereotype a whole region of the country like that. I lived in the south for several years, and by the time I left Charleston, South Carolina, I was speaking suthun as well as any native southerner... to the point where my own sister didn't recognize my voice on the phone.

And frankly, I never brought up the Hitler comparison, I don't typically make the Nazi/Hitler argument, I don't frequent wacky conspiracy theorists' web sites either, but I have studied extensively the regime and events leading up to Hitler's rise to power. I don't have a problem with discussing Nazism when the topic is being discussed in an historically accurate way. I don't know who it was who decided that the Third Reich was a taboo topic and should never be brought up in political discussions, but I don't feel bound by imposed taboos when the subject of Adolph Hitler, The Third Reich, or Nazism comes up in conversation.

I'll admit that I was a bit surprised that Phaedrus mentioned it, but I was complimenting him on his line of argument with regards to executive powers and signing statements. And I'm fairly sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that the way Bush has been intentionally using those signing statements to bypass our system of checks and balances on so many occasions is an abuse of executive power. Phaedrus also makes the point that it's not just Liberals that can see that happening.

Phaedrus, you've avoided my question with regard to your course of action.

Can we talk about something specific? Right now our discussion is based upon rhetoric from both sides. I feel I am arguing for a sense of proportion and, ultimately, sanity and reason. You feel I am wrong. So bring it on: let's talk about something specific. Where is he giving himself unchecked power beyond reason?

Re: Clinton - I would say the same exact thing. And if he WAS given the freedom to do his job without fearing political fallout in the short-term, perhaps we could have avoided Mogadishu. Perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

I don't like Gore, I don't like Kerry. But if they got the presidency, unless there was historical cause for concern, I would definitely grant them trust they need to do their jobs. Otherwise I'd be shooting myself in the foot!

Substitution noted.

Aine, you think too highly of me - the reason for the first paragraph is to mock you, Phaedrus, and RobK by comparing the speed with which you damn Bush that usually is a quality of the less-educated. But that's all. While I don't think Hitler is taboo, I think that if he enters the conversation concerning Bush, there better be a really good reason for that.

You know, I see this time and time again: people get agitated about Bush before finding out more about the subject. Don't misunderstand, I am not getting agitated myself because I think you are definitely wrong. I am getting agitated because the above article/rhetoric gives little ground in my opinion for agitation. It might give ground to concern to find out more, but what alarms me is how everybody (even Phaedrus) decide to hop up-and-down screaming that he is going to do unspeakable acts.

Again, let's talk specifics. Then the ground will be pulled right out from under me if I am wrong and I will join the chorus. But I suspect that once we start looking at the details, we'll find that you are overreacting. Again, and I can't stress this enough: may be I am wrong. Please show that to me.

nikitab, did you read the article that we are right now commenting on? This is one instance, right in front of your eyes, where Bush is clearly overstepping his boundaries. It is not for the executive to make signing statements which are meant to sidestep a law that he himself signed. He is basically saying one thing and doing another. He is reserving the right to break the law in the future if he deems it appropriate. That is NOT how our system of governance works. I can not say this loudly enough. This is NOT rhetoric. The President is bound by law just as everyone else is in this country. The Constitution says what he can and can not do. He is NOT outside of the law, at any time, even in a time of war. Bush thinks that because of the war on terror he is free to do whatever he wants and Congress, read that, the people, can do nothing about it. If you can't see this, then I'm sorry, but apparently, I can't help you. You seem to think that since you trust Bush, it is all just fine and dandy. Trust has nothing to do with it niki. It's constitutional, not trust. The Constitution precludes trust.

Phaedrus, are you also eSantiago? Cause he's the only one who's ever called me Niki. Would make sense... both with military experience... similar styles... similar arguments. Both call me niki... Aha! Found you out, eh? ;)

Look man, the president has an obligation to protect us and can, in a time of crisis, circumvent laws, can he not? (see my example above) Although any such circumvention comes at a huge risk because there is heavy political fallout afterwards.

Again, let's talk specifics. Let's talk a specific law that he has given himself the right to circumvent and let's see if what he said makes sense. Moreover, I want to know what the consequences of his actions would be IF he indeed abuses that power.

Look man, the president has an obligation to protect us and can, in a time of crisis, circumvent laws, can he not?

NO he can not. Where do you get this stuff from? Under no circumstances can the President circumvent the law, whether in a time of crisis or not. He even needs Congressional approval to declare war. I'm quite shocked that you don't understand this.

Lastly, no sorry, I am not e-santiago. I am Phaedrus. Your name is nikitab, it wasn't much of a stretch to call you Niki, just like some people call me Phad or Mykola, Myk.

For what it's worth, I agree that the Hitler reference was uncalled for.

Here's a specific law, though: the one in this article! Here's an excerpt:

The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief (Source)

In this case he has taken a law which originally banned torture and amended it such that he could interpret it however he wants. In other words, "no torture, unless I say so". What use is the law, then? None. He has basically stripped this law of its legal force.

What are the repercussions? Well, if someone challenges it (which they should) before it's used, then the signing statement would just be removed. If it's not challenged until someone actually breaks the law and tries to use the signing statement as a defense, then there's the harm to the person who was tortured, and then someone could actually be prosecuted by a law they thought didn't apply to them. I don't know if Bush himself could take the fall for that.

My question to you: Why should it matter what the repercussions are? The President doesn't have this authority. Why would you support the President when he says "I'm allowed to torture, because I say so"? Do you think he should be able to torture, despite the clear intent of the legislature (and most of America, probably) to ban such practices?

OK, let me explain it in a different way. Article 2 Section 1 states that:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

At the same time, the article above reads:

The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's frequent use of special statements that claim authority to limit the effects of bills he signs, saying the statements help him uphold the Constitution and defend national security.

then we have:

"The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is," he[Cornyn] said. "I don't know why the issue of presidents issuing signing statements is controversial at all."

So to me it looks like the President is saying that "Guys, rules are rules, but just to remind you, I also have to uphold the constitution. So I agree with the law, but I want to warn you ahead of time that, if this law will prevent me from doing my job, I will have no choice but to ignore it. You are entitled to judge me on it".

The consequences of that to me are largely symbolic. He didn't have to say it - it is evident. The only real consequences insofar as I can see is that those who might think that he would be too afraid of political turmoil to tap into his presidential powers might think twice before engaging in an activity that he could intercept.

How in the world do you uphold and defend the Constitution by breaking it? You are not making sense anymore, Niki. Yes, his job entails upholding and defending the Constitution, that is precisely why he is wrong here. He can't just decide which laws he will abide by and those that he won't.

First off, please don't call me Niki. Niki is short for Nick, short for Nikolai - not my name.

1) He is obligated to uphold the constitution
2) There is a law that gets in the way

What has higher priority in the face of the law. The law that says that he should do everything to uphold the constitution or the law that is getting in the way? Because either way, a law will be broken, will it not?

Adam, Bush doesn't say "The law doesn't apply cause I said so", but "The law might not apply because it MIGHT conflicts with my upholding the constitution". And IF this law is broken, then the consequences will be that Bush (or whoever breaks the law... although Bush bears the responsibility since he is the one who can break the law to uphold the constitution) will be evaluated by the supreme court to validate the claim that the law was unconstitutional. Which means that Bush now has to justify his decision and, upon failure to justify it, would have to face punishment.

Again, I am not suggesting that Bush should be given a carte blanche, but only that we are reasonable in establishing what he can and can not do and when his power is to be checked upon incorrect application thereof.

In what way can Bush uphold the Constitution by torturing people? That's a pretty lame argument, IMO.

nikolai, you are confusing something. Bush is saying that defending the United States against terror is what might conflict with the law and therefore since he is obligated to protect the US then he reserves the right not to follow the law. But this has already been shown by Constitutional lawyers much smarter than you or I that this is not the case. What makes this great land great is that even the President must follow the law. There is no such thing as something that will uphold the Constitution and yet there be a law preventing him from doing so. this is a false dichotomy. The Constitution IS the law of the land and every law is subservient to it. If the law is unlawful then it will be deemed unconstitutional. But the courts have to do that, not the President. It is not his right to just follow the laws that he sees fit while disregarding others.

You keep stating that Bush can break the law in order to uphold the Constitution. I hold that this is a false dichotomy. Show me where in the Constitution that it says he can break any law. You are very confused, I'm afraid.

Adam, you intercept a terrorist. You know he is a terrorist. You know he hid a bomb meant to detonate in 4 hours. You have no means to make him talk except for torture. What do you do?

Richard, I mean Phaedrus, a law can be correct in one context and unconstitutional in another. All Bush is saying is that when a law becomes unconstitutional, he reserves the right to act as he is supposed to act. This does not mean that the Supreme court can not go after him after this happens.

The constitution says that he is to uphold the constitution (Article 2 Section 1). THAT is what allows him to disobey laws that are unconstitutional if they prevent the president from implementing Article 2 Section 1.

Sorry that I am not in law. Would be great to have a lawyer weigh in right about now.

If a law is unconstitutional and witholding Bush from doing his job, then he has to take it to court. That is what the Department of Justice is for. He can't just ignore the laws and/or break them. If he thinks they are unconstitutional then he has to go through the proper channels to change the laws. It's the same for him as for every American citizen.

First of all, there's little evidence to support the claim that torture would actually help in the circumstance you described. Second, the issue here is that Bush does not have the power to change this law. Congress wrote and passed a law that says we cannot torture, with no exceptions. Instead of vetoing it, Bush tried to rewrite it. He simply does not have that power. If he truly thinks that it is his duty to not follow that law, then he must veto it. If Congress overrides it, he should challenge it on constitutional grounds and let the courts decide. That's how our government works. His constitutional duty is not to write legislation. It's to approve legislation and enforce legislation.

You also have not made a case that torturing upholds the Constitution. You attempted to make a case that torturing can protect America, but didn't make a case that this law was unconstitutional or that torturing helps the President uphold the Constitution.

If you're so big on upholding the Constitution, then why do you not object to the President abusing the separation of powers by trying to rewrite legislation?

Re: torture and data - you have data on this? I am pretty sure that there is plenty of data that can show you that IF there is information to be extracted, torture can be efficient in the extraction process.

Where is he rewriting the legislation? What he is saying is that context should be taken into account when the law is interpreted. I see that as a legitimate argument that is self-evident. If this is indeed the case, then, as Cornyn suggests, this whole thing is blown completely out of proportion.

Basically, what I think he says is that for every law an exception can be made under extreme circumstances. Perhaps Phaedrus is right and that should be written into the law - "the president can authorize torture when such is justified". But that creates a huge political battle that would turn into impractical politicized philosophy - democrats will take one side, republicans will take the other, and the democratic process will turn into a mockery... may be... may be I am wrong.

Again, to ground this conversation, I am not saying that Bush is necessarily right. To be honest, I simply don't know enough about the subject. What I am saying, however, is that there is an interpretation of his actions that seems to make sense.

EIGHT LESSONS OF TORTURE - [see site for a full explanation of each of the following eight lessons]

1. Torture does not yield reliable information
2. Torture does not yield information quickly
3. Torture will not be used only against the guilty
4. Torture has a corrupting effect on the perpetrator
5. Torture has never been confined to narrow conditions
6. Psychological torture is damaging
7. Stress and duress techniques are forms of torture
8. We cannot use torture and still retain the moral high ground

Yes, I do. First, I have McCain's testimony. He has been tortured, and he gave them some true information and some false information. This didn't do them much good, since they couldn't distinguish between the two.

Then we have the experience of Peter Bauer, "a former U.S. Army military intelligence interrogator who served during the Gulf War with the 3rd Armored Division":

On the other hand, it quickly became evident, even in my early days of resistance training, that when subjected to harsh treatment, the tendency is indeed to say whatever the subject believes will make the abuse stop. And that, I learned, is generally not the truth. (Source)

In general, these conclusions are obvious. If you torture someone they will tell you whatever it takes to get you to stop. Even if you're torturing someone who doesn't even know anything then they will tell you something just to stop the torture. What good does that do? If you can't trust the intelligence then it's useless.

This isn't a Democrats vs. Republicans issue. The bill passed 308-122 in the House and 90-9 in the Senate. It was overwhelmingly supported by Congress without adding any exceptions. Bush is trying to override the clear will of the legislature.

The President has no constitutional authority to authorize torture. If Congress says we can't torture, then we can't torture whether the President wants us to or not. You can't argue that the Constitution gives him that power, because it clearly does not. So if you're going to interpret the signing statement as saying that he can authorize torture in certain circumstances, then that interpretation is clearly a change in the law, which has no such exceptions.

I just want to chime in on the Bush/Hitler references. Anytime someone is compared to Hitler, everyone jumps up and down, screaming bloody murder.

Let's not forget that in addition to being a murderous monster, Hitler was a master manipulator. He used propaganda and a carefully planned media strategy to concentrate political power and rally a beaten country into thinking it had the right to rule the world.

Many people make the Hitler/Bush reference and it is clear they are referring to the highly manipulative leader of Germany, not the monstrous murderer of Jews. In that context, I think the comparison deserves a bit more scrutiny than the simple knee-jerk reaction and endless moaning. George W. Bush is not a mass murderer by any stretch of the imagination. But there are parallels in the way Adolf Hitler ran Germany and the way George W. Bush runs the United States. I wish those that oppose this sentiment would engage the actual argument and stop crying foul as if we are asserting George Bush is committing genocide.

Guys, Bush sucks ass! Phaedrus, we don't know much bout the system, but Bush signing a piece of paper must mean he's gonna kill millions of people just cause hiz naim there iz BUSH. haha. BUSH BUSH! Four letter word! Oh yea. And, Aine, sheeet, that signing of a little peace of that there paper surely undermines the rule of law cause now that bastard can just go an kill all of dem civell... cybill... dem folk who don't fight gainst us. His generals will open a can of whoop-ass on dem innoc... innascent Iraqis. And we ain't gonna make exceptions for that there ugly sonufabeetch cause he'll sherly be a Hitler. Yea. I just wanna mention Hitler gain cause it's relevant. Yeah! HITLER!!! hehe... hehe... Let's go kick some pink kittens, guys!

Agree with Aine. Poor form all around.

Aine, Adam, we are going in circles. Torture is a tool. A very dangerous and, in most cases, immoral. However, under dire circumstances, it can and should be used. If I am face-to-face with a terrorist who has planted a bomb under a school full of children and I need the code to disarm the bomb, it is right to torture this person (whom i would no longer consider human because of the choices it made).

Rob, I agree - there may be parallels. But Bush/Hitler should ONLY be used with great care NOT to suggest that the means imply the ends, which has not been done to my recollection. After all, Hitler did paint and not every painter would implement a holocaust if given a chance. But then, given Hitler's primary associations, comparing Renoir to Hitler must have some really good reason. This should extend to Bush/Hitler comparisons.

If I am face-to-face with a terrorist who has planted a bomb under a school full of children and I need the code to disarm the bomb, it is right to torture this person (whom i would no longer consider human because of the choices it made).

You have been watching way too many movies.

Phaedrus, these scenarios are, sadly, not too far-fetched. Until it happened, I used to think that the events of 9/11 could only happen in second-rate movies.

The scenario I describe is a real possibility. Perhaps not in that exact form, but it's a real possibility that US may come accross individuals who may have information that could save lives. It then becomes a question of ethics as to what is to be done.

Other things, in my book, that should be in the domain of second-rate movies:

- Palestine-Israeli conflict
- Sudan
- Chinese persecution of Falun Gong
- AIDS epidemic in Africa

I mean, if you think about it, these are extreme situations that simply should not be. My example simply concentrates how screwed up this world is in one individual.

I am extremely skeptical of torture's ability to produce meaningful information, as I hark back to the witch trials, where it got ordinary people to admit to crimes that were not only fictional, but physically impossible. That's the stark truth: torture gives the torturer the information the tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear. Occasionally it is correct, but how do you extract the correct information from the fantasy?

Furthermore, I think we both accept that the Islamic fanatics that would be most likely to be in such a situation value their own lives hardly at all. Knowing that you are due an eternity of paradise can make hours of pain more bearable. Thus it is even less likely to work than normal.

Finally, we come to one of my all time favorite quotes:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
-Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil (I think)

If we descend to the level of our barbaric opponents, then the idea that our culture and values are somehow superior evaporates, robbing our efforts of any moral justification.

There is one major difference that sets apart Bush and Hitler. Hilter was a brilliant orator, the best the world has ever seen. He could convince you that the sky was purple. Bush...he's not so great at that. There is a reason people coined together the word "Bushisms."

AdipicAcid, by that logic I can also say that water is bad because there were people who drank it and died (large amounts cause immense problems by changing the pH balance in your body I hear). Just because torture is bad in general, it doesn't mean that it there is no time and place to use it. And no matter how religious a person is, pain is pain. Again, I can't stress enough that this should be practiced with upmost care. But categorically dismissing torture as a method of information extraction is impractical philosophy that does more damage than good. Funny how we now both look at each other and say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Just because torture is bad in general, it doesn't mean that it there is no time and place to use it.

In the United States torture is illegal. The US has also entered into a treaty banning the US of torture. Under our law, there is no time or place for torture, period. If you dont like it, you should change the law. Instead the Bush administration says its above the law.

You might think this is a good thing to ignore the law at the whim of an individual, but it runs against the foundation of our nation and the rule of law established by our Constitution.

Torture is a great way to get innocent people to lie and say they committed acts of criminal behavior.

nikitab Yes, we're arging in circles because you keep trying to argue as if we're talking about whether torture is justified or not. It doesn't matter if torture is justified or not. Congress banned it. The issue here is whether Bush has the power to ignore the will of Congress. He doesn't. If Congress says we can't torture, then we can't torture. Bush doesn't have the power to change a law passed by Congress.

And can't he challenge the law in the Supreme Court if he disagrees? I'm not up on that area of government...can he do that?

Seems like tha might be a more respectful method of challenging laws.

I don't know what the process is, but I'm sure he can bring it to court in some way.

Uhm, I think the issue here can be broken down into the following questions:

"Can the president disobey a law if it is unconstitutional?"

"Is there a situation when the ban on torture is unconstitutional?"

To me, this question can be answered on two levels: gut and legal.

Gut reaction for me is "yes" to both questions.

From a legal point of view, I am grossly undereducated on the subject to make a conclusive argument. We need a good judge/lawyer to resolve this. What does the supreme court say on the subject?

Bush Administration Does All It Can to Avoid Judicial Review

The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration has actively avoided judicial review of its actions it claims legal in the name of the War on Terror. Thats part of its overall strategy of avoiding accountablity. There is no one stopping the Administration from seeking judicial review - it is not only not seeking it, but it has avoided it.

Could you cite some references? The other reason why judicial review may have been avoided is because it may get in the way of them doing their job, which would be common sense.

If what Bush is doing is illegal, would he not be checked by the other two branches?

"Can the president disobey a law if it is unconstitutional?"

"Is there a situation when the ban on torture is unconstitutional?"

To me, this question can be answered on two levels: gut and legal.

Gut reaction for me is "yes" to both questions.

Nikitab, just with regard to your questions:

If a law is ruled unconstitutional it is not a law and it would be hard to break a law that isn't. Although someone could continue to call it anything from disobedience to criminal and still get very upset about it.

I could suggest a hypothetical situation? How about when sleep deprivation is considered torture and is deemed the only way to preserve the constitutional rights of the many over the constitutional right of the one. Perhaps better hypotheticals, but I have yet to see a law that couldn't or hasn't been challenged as unconstitutional from one side or the other. It would seem possible that a ban on torture could someday be ruled unconstitutional for legal reasons beyond my capacity.

The other reason why judicial review may have been avoided is because it may get in the way of them doing their job, which would be common sense.

This is the Administrations position, however, it isnt common sense, that the President of the United States should seek to evade the checks and balances that form the basis of our Democratic system of Government. Bush also said it would be "easier" if he was a Despot, but that doesnt make that common sense either.

First, no one has blocked the administration from seeking judicial review or provided any examples where they have sought it out.

Some quick examples of evading judicial review (not always the best sources, but raiase legitimate issues):
http://www.reason.com/sullum/122805.shtml
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/avoiding-judicial-review.html
http://www.acslaw.org/taxonomy/term/68
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0624,hentoff,73492,6.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-11-nsa-reax_x.htm

If what Bush is doing is illegal, would he not be checked by the other two branches?

They are certainly supposed to, but its difficult when you have such a secretive administration combined with a congress that has repeatedly failed to take its judicial oversight responsibilities seriously and instead has pursued a politically motivated approach. The majority has effectively blocked almost all attempts at Presidential oversight. The President is powerful and appears to believe what you call common sense, that he should evade judicial review.

Furthermore, Congress has done what it can to limit judicial review of some of the administrations policies.

The Administration also controls the justice Department and has used secrecy arguments to try to cases dismissed and/or refused to provide the evidence necessary to even have a case in the first place.

The President in many ways is the most powerful branch and the one most able to abuse its power. This adminstration has consistently pushed to remove limits on its ability to act unilaterally and has repeatedly stonewalled oversight.

The Constitution does not give the President or the Executive branch the power to torture people. In fact, the only thing that comes close is this:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (Eighth Amendment)

A ban on torture cannot possibly be unconstitutional. If you were going to argue that it is, then perhaps our agreement with the Geneva Convention is unconstitutional too. Don't you think it's odd that no one has challenged something which, by your reasoning, is clearly unconstitutional?

Something may become legally unconstitutional when it prevents the president from upholding the constitution.

nikitab, you are not making sense at all, what you are saying is that the President is required to break the Constitution in order to uphold the Constitution. Don't you see how circular and illogical this is? Seconly, you keep saying over and over again that the President has to uphold the Constitution. What exactly are you referring to, in that what would require the President ot break the Constitution in order to uphold it? What do you mean by uphold the Constitution? What specifically do YOU mean when you keep saying that?

I am saying the president can break a LAW to uphold the constitution. Your second question is the crux of this argument "How would a ban on torture prevent upholding the constitution?" That is the question I must answer in order to retain my position. I am unable to answer it due to lack of knowledge on the subject, but I am going to compensate for that by talking to some friends who are lawyers.

That's the question I asked a while back.

I am saying the president can break a LAW to uphold the constitution.

You keep saying this and I and others keep telling you that it is not true. It simply is not true niki. Not in American it isn't. The president can NOT break the law to uphold the Constitution. The President breaking the law goes against the Constitution and therefore what you are saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Congress makes laws, the President is there to enforce the laws, he is obliged to follow the law as well. The Judicial branch can declare a law null and void due to it being unconstitutional. The president can not. Until a law is declared unconstitutional then neither the President nor anyone can break that law. Do you understand yet? Stop saying that the President can break the law in order to uphold the Constitution. It makes no sense. It would be like a doctor telling you that in order to save your life he has to kill you. It makes no sense and is simply not true. The President can NOT break the law. Got it?

nikitab, I believe you mean he can break a law to uphold his constitutional duties, not to uphold the constitution. Otherwise, you aren't making any sense.

robK, that is indeed what I mean. Sorry, to me that is the same thing as upholding the constitution because it is the constitution that gives him those duties.

And I am saying that no the President can NOT break a law to uphold his constitutional duties. His constitutional duties require him to obey the law. Get it?

A third function, more controversial than either of the two considered above, is the use of signing statements to announce the President's view of the constitutionality of the legislation he is signing. This category embraces at least three species: statements that declare that the legislation (or relevant provisions) would be unconstitutional in certain applications; statements that purport to construe the legislation in a manner that would "save" it from unconstitutionality; and statements that state flatly that the legislation is unconstitutional on its face. Each of these species of statement may include a declaration as to how -- or whether -- the legislation will be enforced.

Thus, the President may use a signing statement to announce that, although the legislation is constitutional on its face, it would be unconstitutional in various applications, and that in such applications he will refuse to execute it. Such a Presidential statement could be analogized to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld legislation against a facial constitutional challenge, but warned at the same time that certain applications of the act would be unconstitutional. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-24 (1987) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Relatedly, a signing statement may put forward a "saving" construction of the bill, explaining that the President will construe it in a certain manner in order to avoid constitutional difficulties. See Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298 (D.C. Cir. 1993), at *11-*12 (Silberman, J., joined by Wald, J.) (citing two Presidential signing statements adopting "saving" construction of legislation limiting appointment power). This, too, is analogous to the Supreme Court's practice of construing statutes, if possible, to avoid holding them unconstitutional, or even to avoid deciding difficult constitutional questions.

More boldly still, the President may declare in a signing statement that a provision of the bill before him is flatly unconstitutional, and that he will refuse to enforce it. This species of statement merits separate discussion.(6)

In each of the last three Administrations, the Department of Justice has advised the President that the Constitution provides him with the authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law.(7) This advice is, we believe, consistent with the views of the Framers.(8) Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional." Freytag v. C.I.R., 111 S. Ct. 2631, 2653 (1991) (Scalia, J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).(9)

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.(10) And indeed, in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, supra, the court cited to and relied upon a Presidential signing statement that had declared that a Congressionally-enacted limitation on the President's constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States was without legal force or effect. Id. at * 11.

The contrary view -- that it is the President's constitutional duty not to sign legislation that he believes is unconstitutional -- has been advanced on occasion. For example, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson advised President Washington in 1791 that the veto power "is the shield provided by the constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature [of] 1. the rights of the Executive 2. of the Judiciary 3. of the states and state legislatures." Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank (Feb. 15, 1791), reprinted in III The Founders' Constitution 247 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds. 1987). James Madison appears to have held a similar view and as President once vetoed a bill on constitutional grounds even though he supported it as a matter of policy. See Message to the House of Representatives (Mar. 3, 1817), in I James Richardson (ed.), Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 585 (1896) (while praising the bill's "beneficial objects," Madison wrote that he "ha[d] no option but to withhold [his] signature from it" because he thought it unconstitutional). Jefferson and Madison, however, did not in fact always act on this understanding of the President's duties: in 1803 President Jefferson, with Secretary of State Madison's agreement, signed legislation appropriating funds for the Louisiana Purchase even though Jefferson thought the purchase unconstitutional. See I William M. Goldsmith, The Growth of Presidential Power 438-50 (1974). In light of our constitutional history, we do not believe that the President is under any duty to veto legislation containing a constitutionally infirm provision, although of course it is entirely appropriate for the President to do so. - Source: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/signing.htm

Niki, I guess you get to just cherry pick what you want to quote. If you had read the rest of your source you would have seen this:

These functions must be carefully distinguished from a much more controversial -- and apparently recent -- use of Presidential signing statements, i.e., to create legislative history to which the courts are expected to give some weight when construing the enactment.

And this:

So far as we have been able to determine, Presidential signing statements that purported to create legislative history for the use of the courts was uncommon -- if indeed it existed at all -- before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies.

It's not cherrypicking. It's a direct reply to your statement:

And I am saying that no the President can NOT break a law to uphold his constitutional duties. His constitutional duties require him to obey the law. Get it?

Also, Phaedi, I am not sure if you noticed that this was written in 1993?

Now that we have established that these signing statements may make sense, the next question that should be answered is whether his statements seek to make legislative history (which is a controversial, albeit not decidedly bad, practice) and whether the signing statements have merit in the context in which they were signed.

The controversy itself, nikitab, is not the signing statements themselves. It is well established precedent for the President to be using them. The controversy arises from the fact of how this President is using them. He signed a bill into law and then issued a signing statement saying that he is not bound by the law. This is what is controversial, not the fact that he issued a signing statement,but what his signing statement said. Only the judicial branch has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Declaring laws unconstitutional is not one of the powers that the President has.

Where did he issue a statement that is not bound by the law?

Read the article nikitab, that is what we have been talking about for days now. He signed a law supported by Democrats and Republican including McCain which banned torture. When Bush signed that bill, it became law. Then he issues a signing statement, saying by the way, I can torture if I see fit, for national security, I am not bound by the law that I just made law by signing. So yes, the signing statement says that he is not bound by the law. Come on Nike, this is elementary stuff here. It would be akin to me getting married to my wife, saying all the vows, and then behind my wife's back telling my friends, hey by the way, I'm not bound by all that loyalty crap, if I want to cheat, I'm gonna do it.

Dude, did you not read what I posted with regard to signing statements that question constitutionality of a law under different contexts? Let's not go through hearsay on this - let's find the signing statement and see if what I wrote actually applies.

Dude, if the President is questioning the Constitutionality of a law then he should grow some balls and veto the damn thing. This President has the distinction of having never vetoed a single bill. It don't matter to him, because he doesn't feel he has to follow the laws he signs anyway.

Reasons for why no bill was ever vetoed is conjecture on your part. Another explanation may be that by the time it comes to be signed is a better workflow prior to the bill being placed before him.

Another explanation may be that by the time it comes to be signed is a better workflow prior to the bill being placed before him.

Sorry, I can't make heads or tails out of what you just said.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005. (Source)

From what I can tell, it's saying that the President can authorize torture if he thinks he needs to in order to protect America, that there is no right for private citizens to sue the government to force them to abide by this law, that habeas corpus does not apply to enemy combatants, and that the courts do not have the ability to rule otherwise.

They argue that because this new law does not explicitly give detainees constitutional rights, that they don't have any, and the courts can't give them any.

Compare this to the text of the law:

(a) In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure- The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
(Source)

They may be right about the habeas corpus part. Here's a relevant part of that section:

(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider--

`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
...

(Source)

So, in my opinion, the signing statement is correct about habeas corpus, but wrong about the actual torture part. The bill makes no exceptions at all in its ban on torture, and I don't believe that the Constitution gives the President the power to ignore the law for any reason.

Oh, and here's the text of the entire bill: House Report 109-359 - MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

"The object of power is power; The object of torture is torture."

- O'Brien, 1984 by George Orwell.

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become[s] a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part....
Bush's use of signing statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. What is going to happen when the question at issue is the constitutionality of a provision the President has declared unconstitutional in a signing statement?

That may be so, but he would appear weaker (in terms of power) if he vetoed bills and then got overturned. That's why vetoes aren't used much (and considering Bush has had a Republican Congress for his entire presidency [I think...], then the chances of Congress overturning a veto are higher, since it's likely that anything Congress passes which he opposes is a bipartisan issue). If you veto something and get overturned, then it shows that you didn't get your way. He wants to appear like he's in control. If he signs a law, it's because he wants to, not because he has to. These signing statements take it a step further by asserting that he can still get his way. He could either veto the bill and get overturned (making it look like he's worthless), or threaten to veto knowing full well that he won't do it, get the bill watered down, then throw in a signing statement to further assert his authority. I think it's worked pretty well for him.

If he vetos, Congress and the Senate can resubmit the bills and eventually even overturn his veto. Signing statements are proof against this - he just has unconstrained executive power unless and until there's a successful supreme court challenge. So look closely at who he's put in the court.

....elections do have ramifications...!

Yeah, I understand the vetoing process. I guess it goes both ways. His image could take a hit with a veto being thrown back in his face, but what ever happened to conviction? I thought Bush wants us to believe he's not swayed by public opinion.

Sure he wants you to believe that. Most people don't think this stuff through as much as we have, though. Most people never know about these signing statements. This one's become pretty well noticed, but most of them have not. He's managed to get his way that many times without having to use his veto power once.

...thing is the ace that "W" has which trumps all others,since 9/11,the war has been over "there" not over "here"..and that gives solace to many,that many just might be the majority..I tend to think so..but that's an opinion,and you know what they say about those..so to the ballot box we go...(-:}

And I'm sure that "over there instead of here" thing goes over real well with the British, particularly after London's 7/7 attack, right?

..Aine,good point,sometimes it does take that venomous slap to get your attention..I tend to think the Brit`s have..we can argue how to carry out the campaign..but not that the battle does rage...

He is using his presidential powers to the tenth degree because the House and Senate leaderships are afraid to check him.

I think this is a very good point and bears repeating. Our congress is essentially useless, they are too afraid of their polling numbers to take any sort of stand against this administration's reach for executive power. We can sit and nitpick Bush to death, but the fact still remains that our representatives, the ones hired to serve our needs, are the ones that should have but this power grab in check a long time ago. I just hope that the American public realizes this and votes out some of these career politicians in place of ones that aren't scared to death of actually taking on what the constitution has delegated to them. I'm so tired of these fools I could scream.

In a crime ridden society, do you blame the criminals or the lack of police which allows the crime to take place to begin with? I guess a little bit of both, but as Stacy just said, I am really upset that Congress has and will do nothing about this. They will have some hearings and that is about it. Maybe though, with a Republican led Congress they can't really do anything. There is John McCain but he is in the minority in his party. Maybe we will see some major changes come November of this year. Oh my God, Did Phaedrus just say that?

..I mis-spelled Mr Levy`s name,50 lashes..((()))-;}

I think the comparisons of Bush to Hitler have shown in the past to do no good other then to be flame bait. Why do you bother?

Nothing new here. Same Executive Branch MO. Same outrage building against an outgoing President. Actually the same Congress MO to let EO's take the heat off them.

The proverbial "This", has been going on for a very long time. Of course there is reason to be concerned about how our checks and balance system works and doesn't... but it has been operating "This" way for a long long time.

As I have highlighted before there are some Executive processes that are broken and have been abused for a long time. However, in my opinion it has not been until the W administration that I have finally heard liberals voice their outrage toward abuse of power and campaign contribution controls. Perhaps it is because most of us have become more politically astute and active in recent years by virtue of the internet.

Please consider the context around Executive Orders when we read narrowly presented headlines like this article.

Again, I have to ask though, how many presidents have added signing statements to over 700 laws?

I'd be willing to understand it if there is a precedent, but I haven't seen or heard any evidence that there is.

Having the power and abusing the power are two very different things.

Good joke Ugly Bastard,

Everyone knows our Government has become a Cyclops. All checks and balances had been merged into a big one-eye single minded conglomerate monster that does what it wants regardless of what the people want.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

Well your concluding statement is an apt description of your comment - nothing of any substance in it whasoever.

The Executive branch must aggressively defend its rights and privileges from the transgressions of the other three branches

.

Setting asside your math error (thats the other two branches not three), what rights and privileges do you alleges are being transgressed upon? Furthermore, how is the executive branch itself subject to checks and balances on this determination? How do we keep the executive from transgressing on the rights and privileges of the other two branches under your theory of Presidential power?

There is no right or privilege in the Consitution for the President to unilatarally pick and choose from what it wants to follow in the law. He can certainly veto laws he doesnt agree with. He also controls the justice department and bring cases to the courts. You seem to fundamentaly misunderstand what checks and balances mean given that your interpretation and Bush's is that there are none when the President decides that.

RobK-

I wiki'd that question:

Bush supporters note that previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. However, George W. Bush has issued over 500 signing statements containing at least 750 challenges. In the words of a New York Times commentary:

And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.

That is what I thought. Coming from the president who treats the laws of the land as a good start, but nothing to rely on, I'm not surprised.

TopJedi:

This country has a history of doing the wrong thing until the people rise up against it. Just because it isn't new doesn't mean its not wrong! We should be progressing as a society, not stagnating in highly questionable status quos. Institutional discrimination, segregated schooling and the like were argued for successfully for years based on the idea that it was nothing new - doesn't make it right. Breaking laws and betraying the intentions of the constitution isn't new - but it sure as hell isn't right, and I for one refuse to ignore it.

Ryan, as the link to the Myths about Executive Orders indicates, I do agree with you. Where I state this is the status quo is only in the M.O. and to counter headlines like this article that behave as if this is truly a new issue because Bush is doing it. And suddenly because W is vexing congress we should take issue.

I have long had concern with campaign finance, EO's, a congress who authorizes pay increases in absentia, and a whole host of issues that I have written my representatives about. An article that says we should care because Bush is out of control and congress is vexed, does not exactly tug at my heart strings.

But I am glad more people are getting fired up about necessary reforms.

Agreed. Y'know, in retrospect, I believe the reasons these questions weren't asked of Clinton had to do with the prosperous peacetime that many Americans enjoyed during his time in office -that and the republican opposition was focused on other, more frivolous instances of impropriety.

But the buck has to stop somewhere, I suppose. Don't worry, if the following prez doe similar things with abuses of executive power i'll be up and screaming, be he (or she :D) republican or democrat.

Thanks! Do you have a link to the statements that caused all this rucus?

nikitab,

"Can the president disobey a law if it is unconstitutional?"

Yes and no, first of all the President doesn't get to decide which laws are unconstitutional or not. That is the job of the Judicial branch, the Supreme Court. The Court has to decide when and if a law is unconstitutional. In the meantime, the President has to abide by it, just as the rest of us do.

Here is a perfect example, in Florida a few years back they ruled that it is unconstitutional according to state law to require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Before the law was deemed unconstitutional by the Courts, do you think Jeb Bush or any other Floridian could have just rode a bike without a helmet because THEY thought the law to be unconstitutional? Of course not. All laws have to be obeyed until they are deemed unconstitutional. We don't need a lawyer for this one, Nikolai.

First off, my name is Nikita, not Nikolai.

Second, giving an irrelevant example does not change the fact that a law may be constitutional in one context and unconstitutional in another. Because I am not a lawyer and am a bit dense, I don't have an example to give you at the moment.

niki, you are the one that told me in an earlier comment that niki was short for nikolai. I didn't just make that up.

Yes, laws can be unconstitutional. I am not arguing that, nor is anyone here. What you fail to realize though is that it is not the Constitutional right or duty of the President to declare laws unconstitutional. You know of the concept of separation of powers, correct? The Judicial branch of the government has the sole authority to declare a law unconstitutional, when they have done so, the law will be stricken and will no longer be a law. The President, however, can not just say, hey I think this law is unconstitutional, therefore I don't have to abide by it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, you dont have to be a constitutional lawyer to know this, Nikita. Are you gonna tell me now that your name is not Nikita?

Sorry Nikitab, I don't have time to find the original statement but here is the quote and a wikipedia reference.

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Signing Statements