As I discussed with
What happens, though, when a President demonstrates that he has no regard whatsoever for the Constitution? In that case, friends, signing statements are akin to tyranny.
5.11.2006
Now I Cry
According to this Boston Globe Article (thanks, psb!), President Bush "has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." This is done in things called "signing statements," "official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law."
As I discussed withpalecur earlier, "signing statements" are an important means by which a President can sign legislation into law and yet still uphold his oath to protect and serve the Consitution by effectively blocking otherwise unconscionable parts of the law. (Think: a President willfully ignoring race-based legislation, for example.) Some could make the more effective argument that vetoes are an even better means for this, but those can be mighty contentious. So let me go on record as saying that as long as a President is using these signing statements in a good faith attempt to protect and serve the Constitution, there are arguments that could be made in their favor.
What happens, though, when a President demonstrates that he has no regard whatsoever for the Constitution? In that case, friends, signing statements are akin to tyranny.
As I discussed with
What happens, though, when a President demonstrates that he has no regard whatsoever for the Constitution? In that case, friends, signing statements are akin to tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'd make a distinction there. I could respect a President directing the Attorney General to bring a test case to the Supreme Court if he or she thought the law was unconstitutional, and refusing to enforce the law in the span until the judgement is rendered. But to simply refuse to execute the law is a dismissal of the powers of both the legislative and the judicial.
While I'm on the subject, I'd add that the link about the President's quote about the disregard for the Constitution is epistemologically problematic. I feel it is most likely that he said it, but it's not confirmed.
Late at night, it's not good for me to read this kind of thing. It gets me into fantasies of the Jeffersonian kind, which is simply not a good place to go.
Post a Comment