Its about time.
WASHINGTON: The powerful American Bar Association charged president George Bush with flouting the constitution and undermining the rule of the law by assuming power to disregard selected provisions of bills he signs.
An 11-member bipartisan panel of the bar association said in a report that Bush had used the provision of "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to over 800 provisions in more than 100 laws as they infringed on his prerogatives.
The panel said these uses of power by the president amounted to "veto" and deprived the Congress of the opportunity to override the veto.
A signing statement is a statement attached to a legislative bill when the president signs it to make it a law. Usually, such statements pertain to instructions to law enforcing agencies on how to use the law.
The panel cited laws relating to ban on torture and other national security laws, where Bush had, through the signing statements, reserved the right to disregard them.
The report described the use of signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." It said the president has the right to veto a bill if he feels the bill is unconstitutional, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential veto."
The report comes as a shot in the arm for a campaign being initiated by scholars and members of the Congress who seek to curb the use of signing statements.
Judiciary committee chairman and Republican Arlen Specter said on the Senate floor that he will have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing the Congress to sue the president in a federal court on the issue of using signing statements. Specter told the Senate, "We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will ... authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional."
Specter is particularly annoyed by two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation that bans torture of detainees.
American Bar Association president Michael Greco said the non-veto hamstrings the Congress because the Congress cannot respond to a signing statement. The practice, he said "is harming the separation of powers."
The panel said Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by the Congress.
The White House defended the use of signing statements, saying these are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law. A spokesperson said a great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"
A Republican Senator and a former judge, John Cornyn, said signing statements carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws. They amount of mere expressions of presidential opinion.
The panel said its recommendations should not be construed as an attack on the president. It said several previous presidents had asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which they objected. But, Bush had expressed his objections more forcefully, more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence federal agencies and judges, it felt.
The panel also found Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic language, with no citation of authority or detailed explanation. It urged the Congress to pass a law requiring the president to elaborately state the reasons and legal basis for any signing statement where he intended to disregard or decline to enforce a statute. The panel also recommended legislation enforcing judicial review of signing statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment