Posted on 06/18/2007 12:57:43 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration sometimes fails to follow all provisions of laws after President Bush attaches "signing statements" meant to interpret or restrict the legislation, congressional examiners say.
Lawmakers who asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study said it was further proof that the Bush White House oversteps constitutional bounds in ignoring the will of Congress.
"Too often, the Bush administration does what it wants, no matter the law. It says what it wants, no matter the facts," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., said Monday. Byrd and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., requested the report.
Signing statements, in which the president appends bills he is signing into law with statements reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard provisions on national security and constitutional grounds, have become a major sticking point in the power struggle between Congress and the White House.
Conyers made signing statements the topic of his committee's first oversight hearing after Democrats took over control of Congress in January.
The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions were not executed as written.
In one case the Pentagon did not include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.
The White House, in issuing the statements, has argued that the president has a right to control executive branch employees and officers, that he has authority to withhold from Congress information sometimes considered privileged or that Congress should not interfere with his constitutional role as commander in chief.
The GAO report, which did not assess the merits of the president's arguments, said signing statements go back at least to President Andrew Jackson, while citing other congressional studies that such statements have become increasingly common since the Reagan administration.
Byrd and Conyers said Bush has issued 149 signing statements, 127 of which raised some objection. They said the statements often raise multiple objections, resulting in more than 700 challenges to distinct provisions of law.
The GAO said signing statements accompanied 11 of the 12 spending bills in 2006, singling out 160 specific provisions in those bills.
The issue gained attention last year after Bush — after lengthy negotiations on renewal of the Patriot Act with language backed by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., that banned the torture of detainees — attached a signing statement in which he reserved the right to interpret that provision.
The White House has defended the statements, saying presidents have always defended their prerogatives when it comes to national security and it is important to express reservations about the constitutionality of legislation.
The American Bar Association, at an annual meeting last year, approved a resolution condemning use of signing statements, saying presidents should not resort to diluting or changing laws passed by Congress rather than using their veto powers.
Government Accountability Office:
http://www.gao.gov/
—The Bush administration sometimes fails to follow all provisions of laws—
AHA! And by contrast, Congress and the Judicial branch ALWAYS follow all provisions of all laws???
The American Bar Association: When it absolutely, positively must have Moral Authority.
*snicker*
Two (three), wrongs don’t make a right - comes to mind.
Right, so Congress passes a continuing resolution that keeps the government operational and attaches a provision that’s totally unrelated and out of bounds. So the President is supposed to shut down the government via veto rather than contest that one, eggregious provision. Get real ABA.
Legislative history is the verbal and written record of congressional committee hearings, bills, and floor speeches, that are not part of the text of the actual law.
The President's position is that if judges are going to go around citing legislative history then he has the right to make his own statements to add to that history.
At issue was a December 2005 law curtailing the rights of Guantanamo detainees to file lawsuits. The Supreme Court's majority ruled that the law applied only to future cases, so that existing suits could go forward. But in his dissent, Scalia scolded the majority, saying it had selectively cited bits of the act's legislative history to support its view and downplayed contrary evidence -- including the signing statement Bush issued on Dec. 30, 2005. Source
Democrats had no problem when BJ Clinton used them. Don’t get to suddenly call foul now that they lost the WH.
Since the President has a constitutional duty NOT to uphold or enforce any law that he deems unconstitutional and the Congress does not.... I guess the can keep on whining.
Formulating a discussion based on two wrongs, perceived or otherwise, doesn't make for good discussions.
Impoundment-Not spending the money that Congress appropriates
True, but this study is a political stunt, not an attempt to force the executive branch to follow the law.
If Congress feels that the President is misinterpreting the law, they can take the issue to the courts, as they have in the past.
In reality, the laws passed by Congress are vague, because Congress cannot agree on more specific wording, and then the opposing sides on the issue then try and get the interpretation they desire out of either the executive branch or from the courts.
How many times are we going to hear liberals (including McCain) complain about our government torturing terrorists, and the executive branch say that they aren't torturing them. They argue for a while, and then come up with new, vaguely worded legislation, that doesn't define if the methods being used are torture any better than the past legislation. They argue about it over and over again, but the issue doesn't go away, because liberals don't want it to go away. They just want to keep portraying the Bush administration as evil.
I agree with you.
Actually they go back to George Washington, and they were meant more or less as an explanation on how the law would be carried out.
Actually, that might not even work, the easiest (i.e. hardest) thing for them to do, is to make the language of a bill as clear cut, consise and narrow as possible, which they never do.
Signing statements are usually added to all bills to specify things (such as which department will actually carry out the bill, how it will be enforced, etc).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.