Maybe being president just goes to your head. Why else is George Bush signing bills into law accompanied by statements suggesting he can ignore certain provisions if he chooses?
The president’s latest “signing statement” came March 9 with renewal of the Patriot Act, the law that provides government with broad surveillance powers. Patriot II was enacted by Congress after a long battle with the White House over expanded law enforcement powers. To obtain passage, the administration agreed to oversight provisions that included reporting to Congress.
On signing the bill, however, Bush quietly issued a statement asserting that he had the authority to ignore the oversight rules. He said he’d construe the act “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”
Last year, Congress passed a law outlawing the torture of detainees in U.S. custody. Bush signed the legislation even though Congress did not include a provision he wanted giving the president the power to waive the torture ban. But never mind. His signing statement suggested he could bypass the law anyway, prompting Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to say, “President Bush continues to believe he’s above the law and above the Constitution … [that the] unitary executive president can pick and choose which laws he will follow.”
This calls to mind the current debate on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on domestic calls. Bush has declared that he can authorize such surveillance without court warrants mandated by law.
Signing statements are not new. Past presidents have issued them on occasion. While the Constitution doesn’t mention them, it does say the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say the president has the power to ignore provisions he doesn’t like.
This president has taken signing statements to a new level, issuing more than 100 statements challenging more than 500 provisions of bills passed by Congress and signed into law. Instead of signing statements, Bush should be vetoing bills he objects to, or working with Congress to make changes in legislation he doesn’t like. Bush has never vetoed a bill.
And where is Congress? Lawmakers so far have responded with only a whimper, refusing to defend the concept of checks and balances and the constitutionality of their role as a co-equal branch of government. They need to step up and assure that the presidency does not operate above the law.
