Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
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
Comments
Due to trouble with browser compatibility, Common Dreams has reverted to the older version of Disqus for comments while they fix these problems.
75 Comments so far
Show AllPelosi 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.