[MLUG - DISCUSSION] Bush challenges hundreds of laws

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

This is a long article but it seems to be very important.

Let's look at the last three presidents in terms of number of statutes 
challenged per year in office:

GHW Bush:  58.0 per year
 Clinton:  17.5 per year
 GW Bush: 150.0 per year

GW Bush is out of control!  So why hasn't the news media made us more 
aware of this strange situation?  Check out the excerpts below, but the 
entire articles are probably worth reading; I don't have time to read it 
right now but I'm printing it out for later. --Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Bush's contention that he can ignore provisions of the Patriot Act, whose 
renewal he ushered last month, has drawn scrutiny.

The Boston Globe
April 30, 2006

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- 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.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, 
affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about 
immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear 
regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in 
federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he 
can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the 
expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of 
government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power 
to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws 
be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he 
does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

[snip]

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own 
powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the 
law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the 
courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied 
the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and 
his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to 
concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a 
very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential 
power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. 
''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

[snip]

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice 
Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the 
laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions 
about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. 
They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been 
used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully 
execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are 
the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the 
ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising 
that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, 
giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has 
signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's 
sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their 
work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush 
quietly files ''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. The statements are 
recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the 
Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills 
-- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations 
with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended 
such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are 
there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those 
compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press 
or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami 
University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive 
power.

[snip]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements

The Boston Globe
April 30, 2006

Examples of the president's signing statements

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements 
on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside 
the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the 
Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the 
statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates 
Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by 
certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes 
and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department 
officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could 
impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise 
subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive 
the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will 
assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government 
researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored 
and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold 
any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair 
foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive 
branch.

[snip]

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion