Read the Fine Print
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web, July 25, 2006
Over 212 years, 42 presidents issued
“signing statements” objecting to a grand total of 600 provisions of new laws.
George W. Bush has done that more than 800 times in just over five and a half
years in office.
Most presidents used signing statements to get legal objections on the record
for judges to consider in any court challenge. For Mr. Bush, they are far
more: part of a strategy to expand presidential powers at the expense of
Congress and the courts. His signing statements have become notices to
Congress that he simply does not intend to follow the law, especially any
attempt to hold him accountable for his actions.
Some of Mr. Bush’s signing statements have become notorious, like the one in
which he said he didn’t feel bound by the new law against torturing prisoners.
Others were more obscure, like the one in which he said he would not follow a
law forbidding the White House to censor or withhold scientific data requested
by Congress.
But all serve the “unitary executive theory” cherished by some of Mr. Bush’s
most extreme advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal staff.
This theory says that the president — and not Congress or the courts — has the
sole power to decide how to carry out his duties. According to a study by
a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association, Mr. Bush objected to 500
provisions of new laws just in his first term — the majority of them because
they conflicted with the unitary executive theory. The A.B.A. said that
theory was specifically mentioned 82 times.
The Bush administration often says the president is just trying to stop Congress
from interfering with his ability to keep the nation safe, and that other
presidents also included constitutional objections in their signing statements.
That’s just smoke.
For one thing, under this president, all laws are screened by Mr. Cheney’s staff
for violations of the unitary executive theory. Presidents Ronald Reagan,
George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton had the Justice Department report
constitutional concerns about new laws to the White House. Mr. Bush often
does cite national security as an excuse for ignoring an act of Congress — but
that is almost always because lawmakers are trying to rein him in on issues like
the treatment of prisoners, and the withholding of information from Congress.
The A.B.A. called Mr. Bush’s use of presidential signing statements “contrary to
the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers” and
recommended that Congress enact legislation clarifying the issue.
We agree on both points, even though we fear that if Congress passes a bill, Mr.
Bush will simply issue a new signing statement saying he also does not intend to
follow it.
|
