The American Bar Association issued a report yesterday on the use of "signing statements" by Bush (in particular) and future Presidents (in general). They note that the practice is "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." Some examples,
- Whenever Congress directs the president to furnish information, Mr. Bush reserves the right to withhold it.
- When Congress imposes mandates and requirements on the executive branch, the president often says he will read them as advisory or "precatory."
- When Congress tries to define foreign policy ... Mr. Bush objects. Even if he agrees with the policy, he asserts that the Congressional directives "impermissibly interfere with the president's constitutional authority" to conduct foreign affairs.
- Whenever Congress prescribes qualifications for presidential appointees, Mr. Bush complains that this is an intrusion on his power, even if Congress merely requires that the appointee know about the field for which he will be responsible.(source)
You can read the ABA report here
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I was reading the article that is currently was on the Buzz in Scienceblogs. It is about President Bush issuing an executive order to the bureaucracy curtailing the use of guidance statements and insisting that political appointees evaluate the costs and benefits of these statements. The story…
The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun holding hearings on the issue of presidential signing statements. PSS are statements that the President signs along with a piece of legislation that gives his interpretation of certain provisions of the act. Such statements are not new, but Bush has used…
Richard Epstein, the libertarian legal scholar from the University of Chicago, has an op-ed piece in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about the dangers of how Bush is using presidential signing statements. He points out how differently Bush is using them than his predecessors did:
There is nothing new…
Washington Monthly has an interesting set of essays by prominent conservatives on why they want the Republicans to lose in November. Joe Scarborough writes of the virtues of divided government during the 90s:
The fact that both parties hated each another was healthy for our republic's bottom line.…