Bush Asserts Authority To Bypass Defense Act
WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.
Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
“Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief,” Bush said. “The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”
One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq” or “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”
The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.
The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a “treaty,” and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
“Every time a senior administration official is asked about permanent US military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities,” said Senator Robert P. Casey Jr., Democrat of Pennsylvania, in a Senate speech yesterday. “Yet this signing statement issued by the president yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the administration wants to hold this option in reserve.”
Several other congressional Democrats also took issue with the signing statement.
“I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that.”
Bush’s signing statement did not explain the specific basis for his objection to the prohibition on establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
But last year, the White House told Congress that a similar provision in another bill “impermissibly infringes upon the president’s constitutional authority to negotiate treaties and conduct the nation’s foreign affairs.”
Some legal specialists disagreed with the administration’s legal theory.
“Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq,” said Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who was the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration.
Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to advance aggressive theories of executive power has been a hallmark of his presidency. Previous presidents occasionally used the device, but Bush has challenged more sections of bills than all his predecessors combined - among them, a ban on torture.
Bush signing statements prompted widespread controversy when his record came to light in 2006. After Democrats took over Congress in 2007, Bush initially issued fewer and less aggressive signing statements. But his new statement returned to the previous approach, observers said.
The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts. The new law expands employees’ ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.
In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over “any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion” requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days. If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.
Finally, Bush’s signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan “Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan” to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors.
The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel “expeditiously” upon its request.
The signing statement did not make clear whether Bush is objecting to the creation of the commission because some of its members will be appointed by Congress or whether he is reserving the right to turn down its requests for information - or both.
Phillip Cooper, a political science professor at Portland State University, noted that Bush’s statement does not clearly spell out the basis for any of his challenges. Cooper, who has been a pioneer in studying signing statements, said the vague language itself is a problem.
“It is very hard for Congress or the American people to figure out what is supposed to happen and what the implications of this are,” Cooper said.
The White House did not respond to a Globe request to explain the objections in greater detail. But the Bush administration has repeatedly insisted that its use of signing statements has been both lawful and appropriate.
Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said.
“What this shows is that they’re continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president’s unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that’s a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition,” said Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s.
In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.”
Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not.
© 2008 Associated Press
Unconstitutionally infringe on powers? Good to know that he’s still concerned with it. Maybe he could re-ratify the Fourth Amendment.
If the president dies or is incapable of fulfilling his duties of office, he is replaced by the vice president. Please be advised not to shoot President Bush.
Gee, Bush issuing yet another signing statement proclaiming his imperial powers…and Congress again saying nothing. This has become the status quo and is in no way surprising. Bush has been saying he is (and being aided in this by Congress) above the law since his illegal ascension to office in 2001.
Are all republicans above the law? You’d be amazed at how beneficial a pair of hancuffs and a ride in a cop car would be. It would really re-adjust some of the erroneous thinking out there.
Any congress person that is against impeaching this president and vice president needs to lose their seat in congress in the next election and that includes all those traitorous Democrats who oppose it.
wtf are these “signing statements”? why are these even allowed? why bother with the pretense then that the office of POTUS is nothing more than a dictatorship!
Bush and Joe Stalin were both featured, in their respective eras, on the front cover of Time Magazine (I still remember the Stalin cover … I must’ve been about 8). Was this circumstance, or is there a message there?
I am waiting to hear from all the ‘law and order’ Republicans to repudiate their little Adolf. Rove wanted them to be the eternal majority - common sense and the Constitution should relegate them to the prisons.
“John McCain said he would not.”
I think that is an important thing to remember if he gets the Republican nod (I still support Ron Paul however). Also, for those that have not seen the movie, see Why We Fight (no it is not a pro-war movie, just the opposite).
I am the king
And the law is my thing
___________________________
I’m just spitballing here, but it might not be a bad idea to divide political power into portions– OK, call them, say, “branches”– so that there would be a way to control, or… sort of check power if it became too, you know, unbalanced.
Never happen, I know. I guess having government officials walking in line behind the Unitard– whoops, I meant “Unitary Executive” like ducklings behind their Mama is Nature’s Way, and it would be foolish to try to improve on it.
Guess who’s going to be building these bases…I would imagine that Halliburton will have something to do with it.
Let me see if I have this right: Bush claims a Constitutional obligation to see that all laws are obeyed. And in order to do that, he has to disobey the laws?
Welcome to the Rabbit Hole.
We are doomed.
Come on all, King George is the decider! Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!
Does anyone have one of those Burger King crowns we can send to George?
Why dont we just set up apartments near factories and plug all of the resources-I mean people into the little holes, hook them up, and keep them working 20 hrs a day like the good chinese and then just HAND the money over to Haliburton or anyone else who the newly crowned Emperor of the Universe Herr Bush deems fit, and stop the BS pretense of a democratic society all togther. We all know the poor and middle class are being mined for the good of the wealthy.
But what I want to know is when the poor are all mined out, the minerals gone, and the water too, who will show those fat rich BAS!ARd$ how to hunt, fish and filter their rainwater!
Can we please seceed from the Union now or can someone please show me the way to Costa Rica?
Speaker Pelosi “reject(s) the notion…that he can pick and choose which provisions…to execute”. Swell! What is she going to do about it? King Bush has made it clear that he will ignore any law he finds inconvinent, and all the Dems do is whine about it. The message was made clear back in 2001: “Cross us and you may get an Anthrax letter”.
Remember?
Dems in goverment: You have let him way to far off leash, jerk him back, and have him heel! BAD DOG!!!
The taxpayers could save a lot of money and hassle by mechanizing Washington. Laws could be automatically written on a long scroll of paper, then ratcheted over to the executive area where they are erased, eliminating the need for storage and enforcement and creating blank paper to send through the machine again.
Oh, also there will be not election in the Fall -
I can’t believe that G. W. Neanderthal, with an already shrunken brain, could possibly imagine he is King! Can our system be so corrupt that our Congress ignore and not take any action against this ego-maniac? If this be the case, what does the next generation have to look forward to.
MSM has forced out Edwards, who was our only hope for a more enlightened society and so we are left with two potential candidates with lots of questions to be answered. Such as what connections do they have and how business interests have helped their campaigns.
Voting for any other party will only add to the Republican strength by lessening the total vote for a Democrat. A third party won’t get space in the Want-Ads by the MSM. So, VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!
Claudius is on to something,
“Does anyone have one of those Burger King crowns we can send to George?”
Everyone go out and get one and send mail it to the White House attention GW.
The funniest quote here is “Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.
“His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that.”
Now what did little George ever do to make her think that?
She ain’t in Denial is she?
www.runcynthiarun.org
polam
‘Speaker Pelosi “reject(s) the notion…that he can pick and choose which provisions…to execute”. Swell! What is she going to do about it?’
Good question. What’s anyone going to do about it except whine? Not the military, who continue fighting a war they know is illegal. Not the Congress who were voted in to bring this president to heel. Not the courts who have been appointed by him. Who? Who still believes in the America that was? Obviously, no one.
I guess you get what you pay for.
Here’s the quote…“His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that.” Here’s my revision..HER job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law (as it applies to Congress)- every part of it - and I expect her to do just that…. NANCY!!! ever heard of IMPEACHMENT?!!!
#
Edward1793 January 31st, 2008 12:34 pm
“Guess who’s going to be building these bases…I would imagine that Halliburton will have something to do with it.”
The bases are already built, Bush is just looking to designate them permanent.
Lobo Gris
Interesting article, but it would have been helpful to have linked to an actual copy of the text of the signing statement.
Lets wait and give Nancy a chance to check on that impeachment thing.
When I look in her eyes I see lots of space in there.
thinkingmom,
did you see bush’s speech monday nite? see pelosi’s smirk? almost as blatant as cheney’s and bush’s. her almost perfectly lifted face couldn’t hide that, but there are things she is most definitely hiding.
Throw his ass in jail. Why is it no one enforces the laws on these people?
Why do we have to obey laws? Maybe when we get a traffic tickets we can do a signing statement that says it OK for us to exeed speed linits.
~~~”Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not.”~~~
It looks like the Dems will do the same if elected to office. Left or Right, it doesn’t matter, they’ll all continue to spit on the Constitution.
Clinton and Obama will issue signing statements?
Is this true?
Someone please explain, yet again, why a vote for these Nimrods is a vote for change. I don’t get it.
Looking at the record of the past seven years, and all these people have gotten away with, it amazes me that we can still even hope there’ll be an election, let alone having a Democrate in the White House again.
Just when they’ve “accomplished” all that they have, they’re going to suddenly allow the dems to have control so they can tear it all down? I don’t think so.
“What is she going to do about it?” Good question. Are the Democrats ever going to quit tip-toeing around these criminals and do something about it or is it up to the populace to “storm the Bastille” and do what is necessary?
One way to look at power is this:
Each of us has power as a human being.
We surrender some of that power to others. I allow the people I work for some of my power, the power to ask me to do this and that. I give my wife the power to choose the movie we go to.
Lots of us give up power to a government. We allow the road laws to regulate our driving. We surrender some of our power to follow municipal laws and turn our opera music off late at night.
We give our power of deliberation and choice to legislatures to frame our laws, and we give up some of our power in agreeing to live by those laws.
We give power to a justice system to handle our conflicts.
And we give power to an executive to run our civil service and military.
My point is, that for the president to do things, a lot of people have to carry out orders. Sometimes they have to choose between the orders of that executive, and the constitution/laws. But they are giving of their own power to that president…and that makes the pres powerful/ full of our power.
So for a signing statement to overturn the intent of a piece of legislation, all the pres does is talk…a lot of people have to do what he has told them to do.
As long as they do what he says, he’s powerful.
what “constitutional obligations” can a criminal possibly have?
Ever since the Supreme Court installed King George II, he has made his own rules and will continue as long as he is alive, because the House of Representatives (Who by the way do not represent most of us) refuses to impeach the King or his Chief Minister, Cheeney. We do not have even a republic any more, let along a democracy. The elections scheduled for this year are King George’s version of circuses for the people. He will declare martial law just before the elections and we will all be further screwed.
You know, as a non-American I used to see the US form of government as a very strong system of checks and balances, but now it is a one man show with Congress caving into the demands of a demented President. Just where does he think he is going to get the money to pay for all this empire building? He has bankrupted the country in his efforts to steal Iraq’s oil and hand it over to Exon/Mobil, et. al. and yet it is the American taxpayers that are footing the bill for all of this. I don’t know how your members of Congress can live with themselves for what they have let happen to the country. They are all complicate in this money grabbing scam that has been foisted onto the American people. In most other other countries such a President would have been removed long ago, but this idiot just continues to abuse his powers and run up the tab. It is a sad state of affairs for all Americans.
All the more reason for impeachment. Will someone please wake up Nancy?
kittyladyoregon
In one of Shakespeare’s HENRYs, Glyndower and Hotspur have an exchange:
Glydower says that he can call the mighty monsters of the deep.
Hotspur replies, ‘And so can I. But will they come? ‘
Same with yr pres, he can declare martial law.
And so can you, and so can I.
But will they come?
It takes a lot of soldiers and national guard and whatnot who are all carrying it out to make it work.
Will they come?
(My old memory makes me think that Shakespeare wrote the scene better than I did.)
here is another opportunity for our representatives to publicly question the president’s latest move. the democrats, including obama and clinton, should be questioning this move in public, out loud at every opportunity. they don’t, sadly to say. that leaves it up to us the voting public. write to editors, local news, editorials, wherever we can find to get the message out. no president in our country’s history has chosen to ignore any legislation passed by congress. i am waiting for his argument of having no need for the congress. it should be fairly easy to do. he already has the supreme court in his back pocket. clear, concise and pointed arguments abound in this. the american people only hear one side of the president’s arguments. educate!
If George weren’t such a fool, I might not be so worried about these signing statements. But watching him interviewed in Saudi Arabia, I realized with a shock what an arrogant, nasty, small minded ignorant man he is, and I got scared. I am reminded of a poem by Ezra Pound where he speaks to a generation that is smug, arrogant and small minded…George is all of those…and he makes me very very frightened.
UN-F-King believable!
King George has just taken away Congressional POWER OF THE PURSE!
It was the only power they had left under the constitution after surrendering all the others to the Self-Proclaimed King of America.
CONGRESS IS NOW A “TOTALLY” USELESS BRANCH OF THIS GOVERNMENT!!
Gail,
He can take all he wants. The question is whether Congress gives it to him. Unfortunately, we know the answer. And we know why.
Claudius is on to something,
“Does anyone have one of those Burger King crowns we can send to George?”
Perhaps we could send him PB&Js to put on his family.
Congress has the Constitutional responsibility, as well as, the authority to Impeach President George W. Bush for High Crimes and delibert violations of the U.S. Constitution.
NOW is the time to Impeach Bush and Cheney!!!!
Save the United States of America for these Mad Neo Fascists. 75 years ago Tuesday Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. Hitler and his Nazi gang have been reborn again in the Bush-Cheney Administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
johnwyclif: I do not think they will come. They are watching Faux News, American Idol and the superbowl. They do not read, nor do they think. For the most part this country was settled by illerate peasants, and they are still here and still stupid sheeple.
Hey everyone! Congress is going to give us money so we can keep watching TV!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/01/31/digital.tv.ap/index.html
Kind of reminds me of Goebbels distributing radios that would only pick up Nazi Party broadcasts . . .
No enforcement. That’s the problem here. Pelosi says “impeachment is off the table.” Then she says — “His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that.”
Grow up, Nancy.
Read that statement by Pelosi carefully. She says her President must -execute- the law. He is doing exactly that, executing it. He will also execute anyone who opposes his murderous ways.
Pelosi is placing feminism above her obligation to the people and the Constitution. She expects Hillary to become President and Nancy to stay on as Speaker. Imagine the power…..sick. Impeachment now!
How about legislation making illegal (and automatically revoked) any signing statements that conflict with law as enacted by the Congress?
How about Republican members of Congress who have regained their sanity INITIATING impeachment proceedings of both Bush and Cheney?
How is it possible that we continue to allow all of these people to govern over us, as in We the People?
Are not part of the words, in order to form a more perfect union? Have they all not sworn an Oathe to defend the US Constitution against all both foreign and domestic?
And yet, now, Bush is using the constitution to ruin the constitution? And congress says and does what? And ole Nancy P. says she expects Bush to do his job, while she refuses to do hers, and in fact keeps others from doing theirs?
Once again I must ask you the people of this United States of America, if not Under the US Constitution then by what authority does this bunch of criminals and clowns think they have the right to govern?
Impeachment and Prosecution for everyone of them who spits on, tears apart, blatantly ignors our US Constitution. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, three which make one, put together to balance and constrain. Yet, now they all ignor their Constitutionaly mandated duties. Therefore, is NOW not the time to reconstitute and give the boot to the whole bunch…..yeah maybe in our dreams common or not.
Speaker Pelosi “reject(s) the notion…that he can pick and choose which provisions…to execute”.
__________________________________________________________
Very righteous, high-minded, and principled of the Madam to say so.
Coming from an officer of Congress who does exactly that with Constitutional duties and obligations, and has suppressed any dissenters or critics in the ranks, it means so much! It never occurred to me to consider that there was such a thing as the amoral high ground.
Arrant hypocrisy or doublethink? Or is this a distinction without a difference?
Haliburton spun off the construction business, now called KBR Kellogg Brown and Root.
From what I understand HAL is mostly an oil services company. This is probably a way to duck liability for war crimes, fraud, and bribes. The change of corporate logo to Dubai also makes sure the money they stole stays stole.
the bombs have been placed at WH already, yes?
we are a go.
copy that?
Johnwyclif says -
Same with yr pres, he can declare martial law.
And so can you, and so can I.
But will they come?
It takes a lot of soldiers and national guard and whatnot who are all carrying it out to make it work.
Will they come?
When “they” come, it won’t be our soldiers, our national guard, etc. It’ll be the “whatnots” - those being trained by Blackwater and other Haliburton spin-offs - all those mercenaries from foreign countries they’re training just for the complete take-over of America.
BushCo told over 900 lies about Iraq to try to justify its illegal attack on the country, and no one holds them accountable. None of the politicians we pay are doing their job. The Democrats are complicit with the crimes the Republicans commit.
The U.S. had no business attacking Iraq and now occupying Iraq, so why does BushCo make plans for permanent military bases there?? How do they get away with obvious war crimes?? The U.S. should leave Iraq as soon as possible and make reparations to the suffering Iraqis.
The hilarious thing here is that both Clinton and Obama will RETAIN signing statements, thus throwing both the law and the will of Congress into the trash bin and giving themselves the imperial FIAT to rule as dictatorially as they wish. Anyone who falls for either one of these two corporatist phonies needs to have their head examined.
Yeah, purvis ames, can’t say Arron Russo didn’t warn us, http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ , they are working for the same masters and it isn’t us. We are a joke to them.
It’s not by the people for the people. It’s by the rich for the rich. I agree with a great deal of other people here if you don’t do what you are told, you’re just simply dead.
Billions of dollars missing. That smells deadly.
“The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”
Orwellian New Speak, he will uphold the constitution by shitting on it then wiping his ignorant ass with it. 1984
If Bush were a dog, he would have been put down years ago.
The Constitution is explicit. The Congress makes the laws and the President’s duty is to uphold the law. He is NOT above the law and his attempts to ignore the law justifies immediate action to Impeach. We the people of the United States elected a President, and NOT another King George. The Speaker of the House must NOW do her duty and initiate impeachment proceedings to show Bush and ALL those who will one day occupy the high office of President of the United States, that that office was only loaned to them by the people who are the rightful owners of that office.
Get radical. If anyone thinks that electing Hillary or Obama is going to make a difference, think again. Think about what is happening .. our armed forces have just slaughtered a million people in a failed attempt to control oil reserves. The president is saying he’s not bound by checks and balances when it comes to foreign policy. This is a very, very bad situation. Look - the top 1% of Americans (300,000 individuals) own %50 of the wealth in this country. They are running wall street, Lockheed, Boeing, Congress, the SEC, the EPA, the Pentagon. Do you think they are going to politely pack up their sh*t and walk away because some “librals” are unhappy? We will need to pry power out of their hands. And, that takes work, grass roots efforts, getting rid of about 90% of the incumbent politicians. Keep in mind incumbents nearly never lose. Yes, the system is rigged via gerymandering (supposedly against the law). I figure the American public will be ready for that kind of forceful action when it is too late, when global warming or oil wars result in the average citizens life becomming completely unbearable. A million dead Iraqis? Not much interest in that, and nothing is really going to change until we force change.
Please publish all the signing statements of George Bush. If not in complete form, digest form. The world needs to see what this nut has done!
This is the biggest thing I have against Neo-con’s and Republican’s! They twist and try to manipulate the law to where it is completely out of shape. Their warped little minds are always looking for a loop hole to keep from obeying the law. Even when we get this autocratic little twerp out of office we still have a Supreme Court that is made up of the same mentally defective individual’s! Who are willing to twist the law to suit their warped agenda!
Lawlessness is job one with the WH.
“Interesting article, but it would have been helpful to have linked to an actual copy of the text of the signing statement.”
Ever wonder who REALLY writes those signing statements?
I smell Dick Cheney, Co-President!
Best change the recipient line on all those Burger King crown mailings!
I love the picture–looks like something out of that godawful British non-animated cartoon Supercar.
Signing statements are completely meaningless. When a law is passed, it is the intent of Congress that matters, not what the President wants to construe the meaning to be.. If he signs it, it is law as they meant it to be, not what he wants it to be…
This nonsense needs to be challenged in court to once and for all put these signing statements in their proper place…
Has the time come to quit griping about Bush’s use of signing statements and the wimpy Congress not doing anything about them and to start acking the candidates, both Republican and Democrat, congressional and presidential, how they feel about them and what they intend to do after they are elected? Shouldn’t they take a stand and be held to it? Shouldn’t it be included in the items proposed for inclusion in the platforms of both parties?
Henry- On the Money.
How about us little guys even run ourselves, regular people can beat the money machine- we can win with the truth, the evidence is solid, we just need to pool our resources.
Anyone have contact info for Ray McGovern.. we need him to run, to lead the charge.
“I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that.”
That’s what you think, Nancy? Bush isn’t following the Constitution? Yeah? Then what in the heck is impeachment off the table for?
What happened to the checks and balances? Seems like the emperor doesn’t have to answer to the Senate or House or to the American public. AND these Democrats Hillary and Obama are just falling in step with bush’s legacy. And McCain probably doesn’t even know what to sign. Some change is in the air. The only change we will see in 2009 will be a change in name. Otherwise, nothing will get our Constitution back on the table as long as we have these REpublican/Demoncrats running the show.
Well, perhaps you should be looking at the Magna Carta and it’s provision curtailing the ‘divine right of Kings’ cos gues what, you’ve got an 8 year Monarchy.