"Signing Statements"

[jducoeur]

Terribly interesting segment on NPR right now (on "On Point", repeated at 7pm tonight).

Everyone's been making a big deal about Bush finally giving the first veto of his six years in office; there's often been an implicit tone of, "Look how reasonable he is, and how well he works with Congress". But very little attention has been paid to his practice of using "signing statements". Basically, when he signs a bill into law, he attaches a rider saying how the Administration will interpret the law, which sometimes subverts the intent of that law or even amounts to saying that they will largely ignore it.

Well, the American Bar Association has just released study of these things, and it's pretty appalling. Turns out that Bush has issued something like 800 of them -- more than all other Presidents combined. So much for reasonable. Even the more responsible Republicans in Congress are getting worried by this subtle power-grab, and are mulling legislation to at least force some discipline on the practice, and maybe give Congress the power to sue the Presidency over it. Suddenly there's a new constitutional crisis looming, which has been building quietly for years...

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

We are in the middle of a very serious, very quiet crisis which is only now being picked up by actual media. The executive branch has been steadily and rapidly consolidating power while reducing both the balance in, and the popularity of. the other two branches ("activist judges", re-stocking SCOTUS, the whole filibusters-as-terrorism thing, truly ridiculous gerrymandering for the mid-term elections, etc.)

The worry in the back of my mind, of course, is if in January 2009 Bush refuses to step down, or in September creates a new policy for electing or counting (beyond the simple cheating that was done in the previous elections). As with SCA Royalty, you can forgive a lot if you remember they're only for six months -- but the very real specter of perpetual rule, embodied in the denial of checks and balances you highlight above, keeps surfacing.

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

Don't worry about perpetual rule... that's unlikely. If that was the plan, they wouldn't be positioning Jeb as the heir.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

That counts.

[jducoeur]

Actually, I think the perpetual-rule worry is a red herring, and misunderstands the nature of the threat. Bush is not *personally* powerful or popular enough to pull it off, and his faction mostly wouldn't want him to try -- as he has vividly demonstrated, any given individual has a pretty clear sell-by date in politics.

No -- what they're trying to do (and Rove has long been quite explicit about this) is to set up a solid and self-perpetuating political dynasty. I don't think they collectively give a damn about it being within a single family (honestly, I see no likelihood that they're going to push Jeb this time around: his brother has rendered the family name damaged goods until memory fades), but they are almost certainly looking for people who share the same general outlook. Part of that outlook is the whole "muscular America" idea, and an Imperial Presidency goes hand-in-glove with that -- they want a President unfettered by such inconveniences like rule of law, that tend to be a nuisance for government policies.

I still think it's very unlikely that Bush will try to avoid stepping down, or that Jeb will come out as a serious candidate. I think it's *very* likely, however, that they will try to put forth another candidate who is similar to Bush in the ways that matter: instinctively statist, with a strong inclination to favor the monied interests that keep him in power.

(Jeez -- I can't believe I've wound up using the phrase "monied interests". But despite my personal pro-business leanings, it's pretty clear that things have been carried to a ridiculous extreme. I like keeping government out of business' hair, but I *also* like keeping business out of government, and the current situation is much too incestuous for my tastes. It is appalling that there hasn't yet been a serious investigation of Halliburton.)

Anyway, in short: I don't think that Bush per se is the real danger here. I think that the faction and philosophies he represents are -- a loose coalition that are essentially fascist in their outlook, and who want to *collectively* remain in power. That being the case, there isn't much likelihood of them changing the rules to keep Bush in power, but *quite* a bit of danger of them, say, rigging the next election to favor their desired candidate. (Which is why the Diebold thing scares me more than most of these mini-scandals.) Maintaining a facade of normalcy while perverting the spirit of government has been their consistent modus operandi, and I don't expect that to change...

[eclecticmagpie.livejournal.com]

I thought that the big fuss about the veto was that he actually committed to a public opposition to Congress, rather than hiding behind a signing statement. I can imagine the statement he would have had to use: "I approve this bill, under the proviso that my understanding is that neither it nor anything else the Congress does applies to me or my chosen successors or assistants"

[mentalgiant.livejournal.com]

Have Congress sue the Presidency. Let's have at it.

Everything that man does is a product of the smoldering evil core that controls his every action. Its amazing - the worst President ever, and perhaps one of the most cruel, manipulative, disgusting, law-breaking, stupid, religious human beings to ever shadow this world.

There should be a movement to remove his presidency from the history books altogether so as not to endanger our children's fragile memories. Lets do it!

[jducoeur]

Not to defend Bush, but it's important to keep in mind that the problem is bigger than him. He represents a principle that's been growing since at least Nixon, of the "Imperial Presidency" -- the notion that, as the leader of such a complex country, he needs to have essentially untrammeled power in order to do his job. Worse, that it is wrong to question the need for such power. It's more or less fascism, dolled up and prettified with a lot of rationalizations.

Bush's political lifespan at this point is fairly short -- it's going to be a painful two years, but we're most of the way there. But that underlying principle is going to continue to produce ever-worse horrors, from both him and his successors, if it doesn't get discredited soon...

[mentalgiant.livejournal.com]

If the righteous Democrats and Progressives don't get their collective craniums out of their asses, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That and years more of our bitching and complaining. It looks good so far, Bush getting bashed left and right and up and down everywhere you look. However we know we aren't running against Bush... so all this bashing needs to be redirected towards Republicans and the conservative movement. Don't stop until there is some hemp wallpaper in the Oval Office!

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

I recommend reading this recent New Yorker profile (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060703fa_fact1) of David Addington, current chief of staff and long-time legal advisor to the Angry Foul-Mouthed Liar^TM. It starts off with an irrelevant anecdote about Colin Powell but goes into very good perspective and history on their (long) efforts to restore the Nixonian imperial presidency.

I hope it's not too late to stall or reverse the trend but I've been saying for a while that this country is stepping down the road to fascism. There's a dangerous juxtaposition between an executive that believes it should have more authority (and is willing to pull it out of their collective ass while calling it constitutional), ignoring any restrictions or oversight that the legislature may seek to put on it, combined with liberal use of the "state secrets" privilege and other shell games (e.g. Padilla) to pre-empt judicial challenges. Whether or not it leads to a house-cleaning (i.e., party changeover in one or both houses of Congress and then the presidency), a real crisis, or waking up one morning in a country that used to be America remains to be seen.

[mentalgiant.livejournal.com]

How about we all just screw out of this fascist dump and head on over to Europe somewhere. Unless we're all going to be lazy about it. If we don't take a ton of seats this time, lets go to where the grass is greener. I heard France isn't too bad.

[jducoeur]

Running away isn't my style, nor is it an answer. I may be disgusted at the way the extremists have degraded the concept of patriotism, but I still consider myself a patriot -- I'm proud of what this country stands for, and want to see it restored.

Besides, if things continue to get worse, moving to another country is no sort of solution. A true American Empire is a danger to *everyone*. America working in conjunction with the rest of the world can be a great force for good; bestriding it, a source of potential horror.

And it's not as if anywhere is a panacea. England and Italy are both showing their own signs of resurgent authoritarianism, and most of Europe has flirted with it sometime in the past two decades. This is an ongoing fight, that has to be dealt with, rather than escaped.

[mentalgiant.livejournal.com]

What might the solution be? It seems that the collective voting populace of this country are too stupid to vote correctly - for the correct candidate. Or else the voting machines will be rigged, and it won't much matter. Do we need to create an army of lawyers and simply sue the hell out of the neocons and the sitting president? Or that might clog up the courts - but would it be worth it? Its one thing to talk about Patriotism, its another to actually do something. WTF is going on with the Democratic Party anyway? This upcoming election should be a CAKEWALK... however I have my doubts. If we don't win the majority of available seats, what does that say about us?

[jducoeur]

"Us"? Who, precisely, is "us"? I suspect that you and I aren't particularly an "us", even if you are who you are implicitly claiming.

Care to tell me who you are and how you found me? I'm just about ready to assume you're actually edolecki, doing a singularly clumsy job of parodying a leftist -- you're ranting in rather the same way he does. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, if briefly...

[laurion]

They shoukld eliminate signing statements altogether. The cookie-cutter definitions of the three branches may oversimplify, or they may just simplify as much as is possible, and no more....

Leave it to congress to draft the laws, and the courts to interpret them. That's why we have a congress to represent the people, courts to provide experts where needed, and a president to...

Oh yes, to further the political interests of a small cadre of oligarchists. Or was it plutocrats? (I know, I know, it's to do the day to day actual administering of the country) Either way, the cartoon version doesn't include the ability for the president to make revisions to laws last minute and then signing them. I have no objection to the administration proposing new legislation, but packing the houses with party yesmen who won't object to having their authority wrested from them with such a subversive tactic as signing statements is disturbing and disgusting.