Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Did you hear that?
Bill Cosby is a comedic genius and American icon. One of his bits involves a grandfather playing in the basement with his grandson. Grandma calls from the kitchen and grandad continues to play with the kid, who asks, "Did you hear that?" Grandad slowly replies, "Hear what?" without breaking his concentration on the playing at hand. Grandma calls again. Grandad replies, "I'll be right there." The kid asks why he didn't respond the first time. Grandad says, "If it's really important, she calls twice." Presidents seem to take the same approach with Congress.
Sen. Arlen Specter, current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is proposing a bill that will lead to a cage match featuring the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Expect Presidential "signing statements" to become part of the national lexicon very soon.
Here's how it works. Congress "A" sends bill to President "B" (party doesn't matter) to be signed into law. President "B" doesn't like parts of bill, so he (no female presidents yet, except for Geena Davis) signs it, but adds a crib sheet with his own analysis called a "signing statement." Ah, but the crib sheet isn't just a security blanky, it serves as an authoritative statement to executive branch agencies (i.e. the part of the government you and I interact with) as to how to "enforce" the law. So far, no big deal.
I say "enforce" because, according to Sen. Specter, the current Administration uses signing statements as legislative white-out, a kindler, gentler line-item veto. He is accusing the President of ignoring the legislative will of Congress. You may recall, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional during the Clinton Administration after Congress passed a law attempting to give Presidents the power.
In a speech Sen. Specter stated that only 600 signing statements had been issued prior to the current administration. According to Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. MSNBC reports that President Bush has used the sigining statement 750-800 times.
Eventually, this battle will go to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, arguing for the President, will likely claim that any increase in frequency and degree of signing statements is merely coincident with post-911 security concerns and the increase in national security legislation. The Solicitor General will also say that the President is entitled to his opinion, and that he is not entitled to enforce unconstitutional provisions that encroach on his obligation to defend national security and his authority to do so.
Congress will argue that the President has overstepped his authority, and that he can't ignore sections of law like kids ignore veggies on a plate. Congress will claim that the President's usurpation of powers threatens civil liberties and the constitutional system of checks and balances.
These arguments all fall under the rubric of governmental authority and responsibility. With signing statements the President wants freedom of action and freedom from answering to Congress on questions of national security. In a karmic twist, Congress wanted to avoid being responsible for its legislation by giving the President the line-item veto, so you'd think they'd be more sympathetic. Governing is not easy, but we don't elect the President to avoid the challenges of governing by ignoring the other branch of government. Nor do we elect the Congress to abdicate to the other branch to make tough budgetary decisions.
The President is going to lose this one, and he should. This is not about bashing Bush. This is about forcing the President to use his veto and force a two-thirds override, or to enforce legislation as debated and written by Congress. We have a judiciary to make decisions about encroaching on executive power. The President doing that for himself is the same as the fox guarding the hen house.
The Grandma here is also you and me. We have conditioned Grandpa government to ignore us until it's "really important." The problem is, we often realize too late what's really important. This is really important.
Sen. Arlen Specter, current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is proposing a bill that will lead to a cage match featuring the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Expect Presidential "signing statements" to become part of the national lexicon very soon.
Here's how it works. Congress "A" sends bill to President "B" (party doesn't matter) to be signed into law. President "B" doesn't like parts of bill, so he (no female presidents yet, except for Geena Davis) signs it, but adds a crib sheet with his own analysis called a "signing statement." Ah, but the crib sheet isn't just a security blanky, it serves as an authoritative statement to executive branch agencies (i.e. the part of the government you and I interact with) as to how to "enforce" the law. So far, no big deal.
I say "enforce" because, according to Sen. Specter, the current Administration uses signing statements as legislative white-out, a kindler, gentler line-item veto. He is accusing the President of ignoring the legislative will of Congress. You may recall, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional during the Clinton Administration after Congress passed a law attempting to give Presidents the power.
In a speech Sen. Specter stated that only 600 signing statements had been issued prior to the current administration. According to Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. MSNBC reports that President Bush has used the sigining statement 750-800 times.
Eventually, this battle will go to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, arguing for the President, will likely claim that any increase in frequency and degree of signing statements is merely coincident with post-911 security concerns and the increase in national security legislation. The Solicitor General will also say that the President is entitled to his opinion, and that he is not entitled to enforce unconstitutional provisions that encroach on his obligation to defend national security and his authority to do so.
Congress will argue that the President has overstepped his authority, and that he can't ignore sections of law like kids ignore veggies on a plate. Congress will claim that the President's usurpation of powers threatens civil liberties and the constitutional system of checks and balances.
These arguments all fall under the rubric of governmental authority and responsibility. With signing statements the President wants freedom of action and freedom from answering to Congress on questions of national security. In a karmic twist, Congress wanted to avoid being responsible for its legislation by giving the President the line-item veto, so you'd think they'd be more sympathetic. Governing is not easy, but we don't elect the President to avoid the challenges of governing by ignoring the other branch of government. Nor do we elect the Congress to abdicate to the other branch to make tough budgetary decisions.
The President is going to lose this one, and he should. This is not about bashing Bush. This is about forcing the President to use his veto and force a two-thirds override, or to enforce legislation as debated and written by Congress. We have a judiciary to make decisions about encroaching on executive power. The President doing that for himself is the same as the fox guarding the hen house.
The Grandma here is also you and me. We have conditioned Grandpa government to ignore us until it's "really important." The problem is, we often realize too late what's really important. This is really important.
