I will admit that I still have a great deal to learn about politics. Still, I try to keep reasonably aware of what is going on in the political realm, primarily because I feel a duty as a Christian and citizen of this country to have a "prophetic voice" in government. By using this term I am not trying to claim to be a prophet; instead, I am asserting my belief that Christians who do not work in government should be cautious about being linked too closely with any governmental party, and instead should work to call all governmental officials to act in moral ways.
I ran across this story a couple months ago, and it disturbed me then. I ran across it again recently, and I'm curious what my readers think. The story discusses President Bush's use of "signing statement" - a proclamation issued by the President when a bill is signed into law. Bush has used these signing statements, it appears, to reinterpret over 750 different laws during his presidency, a record number. By way of comparison, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton issued 347 statements combined, according to Wikipedia (admittedly not always the most reliable source).
The issue, and I've heard this argued several times now, is that Bush seems to be making a concerted effort to expand the powers of the executive branch in a way that nullifies many of the checks & balances put in place when this country was founded. Those checks and balances are important, because they keep any one branch from having too much power. Since when does the President have the right to selectively interpret laws and decide which ones he is going to follow? Some examples of his signing statements can be found here - many are disturbing due to their complete lack of regard for Congress' intent in passing the bill (note, for example, the statement on torture). I think the controversy over Attorney General Gonzalez' firing of U.S. attorneys, presumably for political reasons, and the Bush administration's absolute refusal to provide information is another example of this overextension of executive power.
However, as I stated above, I admit that I'm relatively new to politics. So I'm curious what you all think. Am I over-reacting here? If so, why do you think so?
6 comments:
I find Bush's attitude, as it appears in these statements, disturbing as they seem to fly in the face of the enacted law which he signs. I must also say that I am only beginning my year-long constitutional law course this fall, so this is not yet an area that I have some background knowledge in.
That said, if presidential signing statements are filed along with legislative histories, then both are merely commentaries on the laws and not the law itself. For instance, if the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President says "the President must do X," then that is the law. That the President later adds a comment that he believes that the law is unconstitutional or that he does not have to follow it does not change the law. All it does is input his interpretation into the commentary. However, it is the Supreme Court's prerogative to give a final interpretation. While they may consider both the legislative commentary and the presidential commentary, they are not required to follow either when determining a law's constitutionality.
As for the practical implications, I (with my very limited knowledge in this area) do not think the signing statements change much. In fact, they let the public know that the administration may not be following the enacted law (something the public would not know w/o the statements, regardless of whether the law was being followed or not). This means that if an administration official does not follow the enacted law (the actual bill that was signed), suit can be brought against the administration official who breaches it. The suit will then go to the Supremes where each side will debate the law's constitutionality (and where the administration will claim executive privilege). While it is true that the President is making his interpretation known by the statements (and in doing so is giving a directive to administrative officials on how they should act on the law), this does not prevent the Congress from appointing special prosecutors to charge those same officials with breaking that law if the Congress believes that they have broken it as enacted (at least as I understand the situation).
Note that the constitution does not allow the court to rule on issues which are not before it. Therefore, the court must wait until there is an actual suit before it can decide on the constitutionality of a law which is the subject of that suit.
I'll keep all of you informed if my understanding of the above changes.
The spread of executive power is definitely something to guard against, but from a historical perspective, I feel that it is inevitable if congressional leadership on a number of critical issues does not happen. If the problems of society grow to a certain point, the society is primed for charismatic leadership (in the Weberian sense).
Thanks for your comments, guys. Troy, I understand your point - however, I think that the checks and balances process has failed. Again I point to the Attorney General Gonzalez scandal - where the Bush administration has repeatedly refused to hand over documents and allow officials to testify. Any attempt to prosecute Bush or other officials (while still, I believe, being considered) becomes so partisan and politically charged in today's political climate that I'm not sure its remotely possible to actually get to the truth, or to hold the president accountable for his actions.
Jody, I wonder if your analogy is really correct? Would Bush fit the profile of the Weberian "charismatic leader"? (For anyone interested to see what that means, type "charismatic leader" into wikipedia - it goes straight to a summary of Weber's use of the term) Can you really argue that someone with such low approval ratings fits that profile? I'm not sure. I do understand what you're saying regarding the severe lack of strong congressional leadership. Sadly, I'm not sure anything will change in the current, highly polarized political climate. Until people are willing to move past partisan politics and try to work together, Congress will continually be ineffectual.
I may be reading his statement wrong, but it seemed like Jody was not saying that Bush fits the Charismatic Leader stereotype... I would agree though that our country might be setting itself up for that... if anything Bush's lack of approval could easily push the public more and more towards acceptance of someone who does fit the role.
In case you have not yet seen/heard this story, I thought I'd share this artical. Alberto Gonzalas has since resigned. Mmmm...interesting...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20459457/
-Elizabeth-
Thanks Elizabeth - I heard something about him resigning this morning but hadn't had a chance to read anything about it.
http://seldomwrong.blogspot.com/2007/08/gonzales-resignation-needed-true-to.html
The above post (from a CCU professor's blog) praises Bush for his actions in this whole situation - and actually praises what I think are some of his worse qualities. SWNID (the blogger above) looks favorably on the fact that Bush is "loyal to his supporters" and "hostile to his opponents" - and when faced with situations like those of Gonzalez, he digs in against his "enemies," but once things die down he calls for the person's resignation (SWNID cites Rumsfeld as another example of this tactic).
My question: are these actions to be praised or commended? My problem with this approach is twofold: 1) If the guy needs to resign because he is ineffective, then leaving him in the position for several months is harmful to the country. If he shouldn't be in the position, he shouldn't be there - stop playing political games with important positions. 2) All this talk about "opponents" and "enemies" is exactly the problem with American politics today - Democrats are NOT the Republicans "enemies," nor is the reverse true. Partisan politics is harming our country. It is time that politicians (and the people that support them) realized that there is a reason we have multiple political parties: because we are better for it. If politicians would begin working together and learn to listen to, and compromise with, differing perspectives, we would all be a LOT better off.
Post a Comment