The Madness of King George: Signing Statement
Fair warning: if you haven’t already heard about this, it’ll likely give you a conniption fit.
Ready? All right, remember the McCain-Feingold anti-torture amendment that Bush/Cheney have been fighting frantically (because if America stands for anything, it’s the right to torture prisoners) for weeks and months?
And Bush/Cheney lost that battle, right? Last month, Bush announced that he was signing the bill, “…blah blah blah we do not torture, blah blah blah…”
But he didn’t sign it right then, on the day, the day with McCain and all the reporters. He didn’t sign the bill until last Friday, and when he signed it, he included with it an Interpretive Signing Statement.
“Um…er?”, I hear you cry. “Signing Statement? Should I care?”
Well, let me set the stage for you: on Monday, on The Rachel Maddow Show (”What? Her again!”), Rachel spoke about an article in The Washington Post on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and how focused he is on increasing the power of the Chief Executive.
Alito, way, way long ago, had written an argument that the Chief Executive should include an Interpretive Signing Statement whenever he signed an important bill, indicating his intent, and directing the interpretation of the bill — it’s another way to increase the power of the Chief Executive, which is what Alito is all about.
So what did Bush’s Signing Statement on Friday say? Just that, in the event that National Security dictated it, he reserved the right to blow off the law that he was signing, whenever he felt like it.
Now, what kind of guy would spit in the face of Congress like this, on the very week before they were going to begin hearings on whether or not to approve the very judge who said that Presidents should spit early and often? I mean, presumably Congressmen don’t want to give up power any more than any other politicians. So, it doesn’t make sense, right?
No, but it’s exactly what King George has been doing since the day he wasn’t elected — it’s all of a piece with the recent spying scandal, basically “Screw you if think that you’re going to limit my power! I’m the fricking President! Damn the Courts! Damn the Constitution! It’s only a Goddamn piece of paper!” (He actually said this last sentence in front of multiple Republican members of Congress, though no one will go on the record to say so).
And here’s the thing: have you heard anything about this signing statement, which in my mind amounts to yet another Constitutional Crisis in a long string of them in recent months, from your usual news sources?
God help us all, still more than three years still to go. Happy New Year.
Read Sunday’s article in The Washington Post about Alito’s writing in support of Presidential Signing Statements.
Listen to Monday’s segment on The Rachel Maddow Show (Starts at 54:19) on the same topic.
Listen to Thursday’s segment on The Rachel Maddow Show (Starts at 50:40) about Bush’s Signing Statement on Friday.
Read the 155-page report from The People For The American Way on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and/or the much shorter Executive Summary.
Bill Standley wrote:
You said it right, Tom. God help us all
Posted 06 Jan 2006 at 11:01 am ¶
Chris Gibson wrote:
Certainly, President Bush II has used the signing statement more aggressively than any president before, but research on the Internet indicates it is hardly unknown, nor unprecented.
One link which purports to show ALL signing statements ever used by any chief executive shows that they have come into regular use since Truman was president, and more and more are being used by each successive officeholder.
Link: “All the Kings Statements”
Probably because of its liberal nature, one reported use was by Jimmy Carter, who used the signing statement to prevent conservatives in Congress from stymieing his plan to grant amnesty to Vietnam-era draft dodgers. President Clinton is reported to have issued 105 signing statements. President Bush #1 issued 146, but Bush II is at 500 and counting.
Clearly, there are huge issues here, and I don’t agree with the assault on the balance of power that the executive branch is waging, but the use of a signing statement, in and of itself, is probably only unknown to the “American People” because the American People (and their “guardians” in the popular press) are so pitifully ignorant of nearly everything having to do with current events.
..Chris..
Posted 07 Jan 2006 at 9:31 am ¶
Bill Standley wrote:
To put this in proper perspective, I recommend you read this article which references these signing statements.
Posted 16 Jan 2006 at 11:05 am ¶
Tom Chappell wrote:
I have very slightly edited the original post to remove the implication that signing statements as such were a completely new thing.
Posted 18 Jan 2006 at 12:32 am ¶
Chris Gibson wrote:
I saw a MSM article today (on MSNBC) which indicates that the Signing Statement has become visible in the mainstream. Two quotes:
and
(Note that the second quote is from a Republican)
Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 8:14 pm ¶
Tom Chappell wrote:
This is Arlen Specter’s M.O.: he huffs and puffs, says it’s not right, and then totally caves and doesn’t do a damn thing.
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 12:59 am ¶
Chris Gibson wrote:
For those who enjoy exercises left to the reader, someone has collected the full text of all prior Presidential Signing Statements (PSSs - no relation to ROUSs) and aggregated them together on one site.
The annotations include links to the documents as posted on the White House web site, and other useful sources.
As posted in an blog entry on MSNBC, they are:
Full Annotated Text of all PSSs
Full Unannotated Text of All PSSs
Index to PSSs
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 9:01 pm ¶
Chris Gibson wrote:
Saw this on the mainstream media today, regarding a report by an ABA group that “includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge”:
“This [ABA] report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,” said the ABA’s president, Michael Greco. “If left unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries.”
I’m glad this story is (so far) holding the attention of the MSM.
Posted 23 Jul 2006 at 8:50 pm ¶