Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws

[Redskins Diehard]

The practice should be abolished all together. Any disagreement the president has with congressional action must be made public through process such as exercising the veto power and resolved by the judiciary branch. In this case, the public has a right to know.

I believe these statements are made a matter of public record. Or do you mean the evening news should tell the public about it? Now that you know these exist are you going to make an effort to find any of them?

[Slateman]

Last I checked, Executive Orders are all generally quietly done. The President absolutely does have the power to do a great number of things simply because he's the President. The President isn't a regular citizen. He's the leader of a branch of government. No, I can't simply say a criminal should be released from jail, but, the President can. He can even make something that was a crime not a crime in this and other ways. It's good to be the king.

AND he gets free room and board

[bearrock]

Last I checked, Executive Orders are all generally quietly done. The President absolutely does have the power to do a great number of things simply because he's the President. The President isn't a regular citizen. He's the leader of a branch of government. No, I can't simply say a criminal should be released from jail, but, the President can. He can even make something that was a crime not a crime in this and other ways. It's good to be the king.

I'm not sure what you mean by "queitly done", but as far I know, EOs are printed daily in the Federal Registers and later printed in the CFRs. In contrast, we have no idea how many laws are not being enforced because the president disagrees with its constitutionality. Such information must be made public so that the president doesn't have final say on the constitutinality of a law. Pardoning, riding Air Force one, etc is part of his job. Being the final arbiter on constitutionality of a statute is not.

[bearrock]

I believe these statements are made a matter of public record. Or do you mean the evening news should tell the public about it? Now that you know these exist are you going to make an effort to find any of them?

I'm not talking about the statements, but the instances when president refuses to enforce a law because he believes them to be unconstitutional. The statements merely reflect the president's willingness to carry out such actions. The public needs to know whether he ever carried through on such willingness.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm not talking about the statements, but the instances when president refuses to enforce a law because he believes them to be unconstitutional. The statements merely reflect the president's willingness to carry out such actions. The public needs to know whether he ever carried through on such willingness.

I recommend you do a little research on "signing statements" or "statements of signing". It will explain exactly what these "things" the article is talking about actually mean.

[Baculus]

This isn't the first time I have written about Executive Orders and Presidential directives. These Presidential Powers have been around since the early days of the country, but, with the extent that these orders have taken over the last couple of decades, their Constitutionality has been questioned.

As quoted in the below Wikipedia article:

"Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3."

In short, it would be defined as Executive Privilege.

And though EO's are printed in the Federal Register, a lot are not actually known to Congress or the public, especially Presidential directives that refer to National or Homeland Security. Now, especially in time of war, some will argue this is necessary, and perhaps with good reason. But if such a power is abused, and with the sheer number of seeming EO's that Bush has been using, it starts to come into question of what he is modifying, especially with the secretive nature of the administration. In short, the concern is that, simply put, this Constitutionally vague power is being abused under the current administration.

A bit of background information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

And posted EO's: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

[bearrock]

I recommend you do a little research on "signing statements" or "statements of signing". It will explain exactly what these "things" the article is talking about actually mean.

As a lawyer, I hope I have some knowledge as to what a signing statement means.

The signing statements didn't have much meaning until the Reagan administration thought that the president should have a say in shaping statutory interpretation in courts by adding to the legislative history. This particular use of the signing statements has received little to no attention from the courts.

Another use is the one at issue here: the president's declaration that the law is unconstitutional either in parts or in whole. But, as I said before in this thread, I do not have a problem with the president stating his view on the law in these signing statements. More information the better.

Rather, my problem lies with the administration's unwillingness to discuss the specific instances of laws not being enforced as passed by Congress.

I would argue that there is no clear answer as to the constitutionality of the president refusing to enforce a duly passed act of Congress. On the one hand, if the president could simply refuse to act on a law based on his belief that the law is unconstitutional, it would substantially reshape our understanding of the veto process. The 2/3 vote override of a veto would not mean that it is a final decision in the legislative process, but it would be degraded to a strong, yet non-binding, rebuke of the president's interpretation of the law's constitutionality. It would sort of become Congress's signing statement. If that is what the framer's intended, why didn't they write it in the Constitution that the president may supercede the 2/3 vote if he deems that the law is unconstitutional? I think the better posture is to understand the veto as the president's final input in the matter and Congress has final say as to whether the law goes on the books.

On the other hand, there are several instances in the past, including some prominent cases, where the president refused to enforce the acts of Congress. The most prominent example is Jefferson pardoning all persons convicted under the sedition act.

While the propriety of the president's refusal to enforce a duly enacted law is interesting, it is irrelevant to my complaint against the current president. Even assuming that the president can refuse to enforce a law based on his own view on the constitutionality of a law, my point is that he should not do it in secret. We have set up a system where the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality and I think it's a pretty good one. There's only one problem: we have to know that there is a disagreement over a law's constitutionality in order to bring it to the court's attention.

Now, there could be a situation where the president decides not to enforce a law and has to keep it classified for national security. In those situations, I think it would be appropriate to notify only those with appropriate security clearances. The general rule, however, should be that if a president decides not to enforce a law because he believes it to be unconstitutional, he must make the decision public so that the controversy can be decided by the Supreme Court. Again, the president can issue his signing statements to his heart's content. But, when you carry through with the views expressed in those signing statements, kindly clue the rest of us in.

If you believe that the president, absent national security concerns, should keep his decision to not enforce a law on constitutional grounds a secret, please explain why.

[Joe Sick]

I guess this is why he hasn't used his veto power.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Bush is a facist at heart...Period!

[Redskins Diehard]

As a lawyer, I hope I have some knowledge as to what a signing statement means.

.....

If you believe that the president, absent national security concerns, should keep his decision to not enforce a law on constitutional grounds a secret, please explain why.

Maybe the President should hire a lawyer to guide this process in the White House?

If you knew this power existed(you are a lawyer so I hope you knew about it before this article) then why did the article stir such a response? Did you have a problem when the previous President "challenged" 140 laws in private? Or the one before him 232?(This is important here because so many are ready to be up in arms no matter what this guy does)

Do I, as a citizen, already have access to the statements, absent ones relating to national security concerns? How do we know which laws are not enforced that don't have one of these statements attached?

In my opinion these statements actually provide more information, and are more up front, than doing so in secret.

[Larry]

On the other hand, there are several instances in the past, including some prominent cases, where the president refused to enforce the acts of Congress. The most prominent example is Jefferson pardoning all persons convicted under the sedition act.

I just had a mental image pop into my head.

W, on his last day in office, issues a full Pardon for any crimes committed at any overseas detention facility.

Not certain how I'd feel about that. I think I'd be ticked off, but I'd also have to admit that (unlike, IMO, a lot of actions this administration has taken) at least he has the Constitutional authority. (I think I would assert in that case, though, that there is one exemption to a Presidential Pardon authority. I'd say that the President can't pardon himself.)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

WOW. Something that President Bush and I agree on.... the fact that we will not be hampered or hindered by unConstitutional legislation (which is probably 90% of what comes out of the Legislature) that we don't like. Maybe there IS some hope for him.

[Larry]

I also just had another mental image pop into my head.

W stands on the steps of the Capital, places his hand on a Bible, and swears to protect and defend the Constitution.

Crowds cheer. Flashbulbs pop. Bush climbs into a limo, drives up Pensylvania Avenue. Ascends to a reviewing stand. Watches parade. Descends, walks into White House. Flashbulbs pop. Shakes hands. Flashbulbs pop. Finally, walks into Oval Office. Flashbulbs pop. Sits behind desk. More photographs. Photographers leave.

W opens desk, withdraws Presidential stationary, writes.

Swearing Statement,

Whereas, the Oath of Office for a President, as specified by the Constitution, contains the words "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution". And Whereas the word "obey" is not contained in that Oath. It is the determination of this Administration that any limitations whatsoever on the authority of this office, whether contained in laws, or regulations, or Treaties, or the Constution itself, are actually an unconstitutional attempt to restrain the unlimited authority which is actually granted by the Oath I've just taken, and this Administration will not be bound by such.

[Baculus]

WOW. Something that President Bush and I agree on.... the fact that we will not be hampered or hindered by unConstitutional legislation (which is probably 90% of what comes out of the Legislature) that we don't like. Maybe there IS some hope for him.

No...that isn't quite correct and I think you're a bit confused with your statement, my friend. The problem is that Bush himself is acting in an Unconstitutional manner, so please, do not portray President Bush as acting as the "Constitutional saviour." Quite to the contrary, in fact - many see him as over-reaching the Constitutional boundries as the Chief Executive.

To quote from, "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush":

"Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

[Mass_SkinsFan]

No...that isn't quite correct and I think you're a bit confused with your statement, my friend. The problem is that Bush himself is acting in an Unconstitutional manner, so please, do not portray President Bush as acting as the "Constitutional saviour." Quite to the contrary, in fact - many see him as over-reaching the Constitutional boundries as the Chief Executive.

No, I have no confusion at all on the topic. I never said that President Bush's actions were Constitutional. I just indicated that he's ignoring laws that are largely unConstitutional.

The Legislative and Judicial branches of the US Federal Government have been ignoring the Constitutional limitations on their power for well over one hundred years, why should the President be held to a higher standard than they are?

In fact it's another POTUS who acted in an unConstitutional manner (Abraham Lincoln) who started this whole mess in the first place.

[Baculus]

Maybe the President should hire a lawyer to guide this process in the White House?

If you knew this power existed(you are a lawyer so I hope you knew about it before this article) then why did the article stir such a response? Did you have a problem when the previous President "challenged" 140 laws in private? Or the one before him 232?(This is important here because so many are ready to be up in arms no matter what this guy does)

Do I, as a citizen, already have access to the statements, absent ones relating to national security concerns? How do we know which laws are not enforced that don't have one of these statements attached?

In my opinion these statements actually provide more information, and are more up front, than doing so in secret.

I suggest you re-read the article - the problem isn't just with the powers themselves, but Bush's decision to use it with such frequency as well as the intent of some of these Executive Orders.

[Redskins Diehard]

I also just had another mental image pop into my head.

W stands on the steps of the Capital, places his hand on a Bible, and swears to protect and defend the Constitution.

Crowds cheer. Flashbulbs pop. Bush climbs into a limo, drives up Pensylvania Avenue. Ascends to a reviewing stand. Watches parade. Descends, walks into White House. Flashbulbs pop. Shakes hands. Flashbulbs pop. Finally, walks into Oval Office. Flashbulbs pop. Sits behind desk. More photographs. Photographers leave.

W opens desk, withdraws Presidential stationary, writes.

Swearing Statement,

Whereas, the Oath of Office for a President, as specified by the Constitution, contains the words "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution". And Whereas the word "obey" is not contained in that Oath. It is the determination of this Administration that any limitations whatsoever on the authority of this office, whether contained in laws, or regulations, or Treaties, or the Constution itself, are actually an unconstitutional attempt to restrain the unlimited authority which is actually granted by the Oath I've just taken, and this Administration will not be bound by such.

Agree, if you replace "W" with "every President since and including Reagan and many other Presidents throughout history". But if you correct that you may have to adjust the bit about the limo.

[Redskins Diehard]

I suggest you re-read the article - the problem isn't just with the powers themselves, but Bush's decision to use it with such frequency as well as the intent of some of these Executive Orders.

I asked this before and got no answer. What do you define as acceptable frequency?

Do we have access to these signing statements?

Has any analysis been done to determine what these statements consist of?

How many laws have been ingored?

[Baculus]

No, I have no confusion at all on the topic. I never said that President Bush's actions were Constitutional. I just indicated that he's ignoring laws that are largely unConstitutional.

The Legislative and Judicial branches of the US Federal Government have been ignoring the Constitutional limitations on their power for well over one hundred years, why should the President be held to a higher standard than they are?

Much of the Constitutional issues we've experienced have often come from the Executive branch, keep in mind. And because you are saying Congress is acting Unconstitutional, then the President should go ahead and follow suite, using Executive Orders that are, themselves, Unconstitutional?

Also, many of his actions are above and beyond Congress, and they are merely Executive Orders that he is issuing and with no relationship to anything that Congress may be enacting. So your argument that his actions are somehow acceptable because of Congress's own actions does not make any sense in this context.

Bush isn't issuing such EO's for "Constitutional" reasons: That's somewhat odd to suggest if you examine his actions. And Bush isn't issuing the EO's and modifying such bills to actually make them Consitutional - to the contrary, he makes the changes to suite his administration's needs. But he isn't striving to issue these EO's so that such bills passed by Congress become more Constitutional.

[Baculus]

I asked this before and got no answer. What do you define as acceptable frequency?

Do we have access to these signing statements?

Has any analysis been done to determine what these statements consist of?

How many laws have been ingored?

1. What is an acceptable frequency? There is not a number that can be produced because EO's are Constitutionally vague. So, in a strict sense, the number would be zero. In a conventional sense, few and far between enough that it does not hinder with the operation of Congress or with the operation of the Constitution itself. And this is where the debate is occurring and the criticism is being leveled at the President.

Let me ask you: What is the limit that you find acceptable? Zero? He can EO away, change and alter any law to his content since you deem he is operating in a manner contrary to a Unconstitutional Congress?

There has to be a limit - it is plain and simple.

2. Do we have access to these signing statements?

Not all of them, no.

3. How many laws have been ignored?

If Bush has challenged hundreds of laws, there you have a possible figure. And this is above and beyond the manner in which he has operated over the past few years that would include additional laws, such as the recent ports deal issue.

I suggest you conduct your own research as well - I have provided information more than once. What about yourself? Asking me questions does not provide validity to your own argument.

[bearrock]

Maybe the President should hire a lawyer to guide this process in the White House?

If you knew this power existed(you are a lawyer so I hope you knew about it before this article) then why did the article stir such a response? Did you have a problem when the previous President "challenged" 140 laws in private? Or the one before him 232?(This is important here because so many are ready to be up in arms no matter what this guy does)

My response to the article stems from the following and not the signing statements. I have already repeatedly said that the signing statements in and of it self is not the problem. This is from the article:

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

That is totally wrong. If the president is going to engage in a head on conflict with Congress, he should do so publicly. Here is a quote in the article from Bruce Fein, Reagan Admin attorney:

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

As for Bush Sr. and Clinton's (and Reagan's actually) similar use of the signing statement, I have no problem as to the use of the signing statement (same position I have for Bush Jr.). But if any of them chose not to enforce a law in secret, my outrage would be just the same. To my knowledge, that has never happened. There is one thing that leads me to think that the current president may be doing this in secret while the former administrations didn't: the current president has not vetoed a single bill. Yet, these signing statements make it clear that he disagreed with many of them. It would certainly be more politically advantageous for the White House to sign the bill into law and not enforce it quietly than veto a Republican controlled Congress.

Do I, as a citizen, already have access to the statements, absent ones relating to national security concerns? How do we know which laws are not enforced that don't have one of these statements attached?

In my opinion these statements actually provide more information, and are more up front, than doing so in secret.

You are absolutely right that these signing statements are available to the general public and provide more information. I agree that this is a good thing. But you touch upon another very important issue: "How do we know which laws are not enforced that don't have one of these statements attached?" We don't right now. And the administration is refusing to discuss it. Don't you think it's important to find out?

Again, I do not have a problem with the signing statement. It is the administration's refusal to discuss the instances of not enforcing any laws based on the president's belief of unconstitutionality that causes me great concern. And I would have had such concerns whether the sitting president was Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton. It is wrong for George W Bush to not enforce laws in secret (if he is doing so) and it would have been wrong for any of the past presidents to do so as well.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Much of the Constitutional issues we've experienced have often come from the Executive branch, keep in mind. And because you are saying Congress is acting Unconstitutional, then the President should go ahead and follow suite, using Executive Orders that are, themselves, Unconstitutional?

Also, many of his actions are above and beyond Congress, and they are merely Executive Orders that he is issuing and with no relationship to anything that Congress may be enacting. So your argument that his actions are somehow acceptable because of Congress's own actions does not make any sense in this context.

I think part of our communication problem here is that we're talking on different levels. You seem to be limiting your view of this whole issue to the Bush Administration, and I'm looking at it on a much broader level.

So far as I'm concerned the US Government has been acting extra-Constitutionally since 1860 and it's just gotten worse over the years as well. This isn't a NEW problem, so far as I can see.

Dose that make it make a little more sense?

[Baculus]

I think part of our communication problem here is that we're talking on different levels. You seem to be limiting your view of this whole issue to the Bush Administration, and I'm looking at it on a much broader level.

So far as I'm concerned the US Government has been acting extra-Constitutionally since 1860 and it's just gotten worse over the years as well. This isn't a NEW problem, so far as I can see.

Dose that make it make a little more sense?

Actually, if you re-read my previous posts, I have indicated on several occasions that this is an issue that precedes the current administration and has become more problematic over the last two decades since the Reagan administration. And while I level such criticism at the current administration, I have always made it plain that previous administrations warrant such criticism as well. It's just that the Bush administration 1) Is the immediate administration, and 2) Has decide to use EO's to a degree that is worrisome, especially taking into consideration other actions taken by his administration.

And you are right, it isn't a new problem. But just because it isn't a new problem doesn't mean that we should excuse such an inordinate use of such tactics nor avoid leveling criticism at the current administration, especially if the President is overreaching the use of Constitutionally questionable Presidential signings to such a degree.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Actually, if you re-read my previous posts, I have indicated on several occasions that this is an issue that precedes the current administration and has become more problematic over the last two decades since the Reagan administration. And while I level such criticism at the current administration, I have always made it plain that previous administrations warrant such criticism as well. It's just that the Bush administration 1) Is the immediate administration, and 2) Has decide to use EO's to a degree that is worrisome, especially taking into consideration other actions taken by his administration.

The whole concept that ANY member of ANY of the three branches of American government would act in an extra-Constitutional way should be seriously worrying to every American citizen. Whether it's the current administration or any previous administration. I also don't see a difference between just stepping over that line a little and trampling it, as has been the standard for many decades now.

And you are right, it isn't a new problem. But just because it isn't a new problem doesn't mean that we should excuse such an inordinate use of such tactics nor avoid leveling criticism at the current administration, especially if the President is overreaching the use of Constitutionally questionable Presidential signings to such a degree.

I think our biggest difference here is that you see there being some sort of possible fix to the system that's currently in place. I don't. I've commented in the past on what I believe the only reasonable fix to the current American government is, so I won't waste everyone's time going through it again.

[Baculus]

I wanted to include the following paper on Presidential Signings from 1993, during the Clinton Administration:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Now, I find this section interesting:

"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. However, earlier Presidents did use signing statements to raise and address the legal or constitutional questions they believed were presented by the legislation they were signing. Examples of signing statements of this kind can be found as early as the Jackson and Tyler Administrations, and later Presidents, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, also engaged in the practice."

Incidentally, this is the reason why I mentioned that the issue has become more controversial over the last two decades and several Presidents.