Today's Article
Bush abuses
signing statements
to 'ignore duly
enacted laws he has
negotiated with the
Congress and
signed into law'.
signing statements
to 'ignore duly
enacted laws he has
negotiated with the
Congress and
signed into law'.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bush's Presidential Signing Statements 'A Threat To Rule Of Law'
By Cliff Montgomery - Aug. 6th, 2007
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), made sure that the panel's oversight
hearing held on January 31st, 2007--the first under the 110th Congress--would be a discussion of the Bush
Administration's Presidential Signing Statements.
Exactly what these Signing Statements are, and how they are being abused by the Bush White House, was
covered by Rep. Conyers in the eloquent introductory speech he delivered to the panel on this important topic.
For some reason, the transcript of this oversight hearing was only recently published on July 16th, 2007. But
seven months later the Conyers speech remains instructive, and is essential reading for any true lover of
liberty.
We quote from Conyers' speech below:
"We are holding our first oversight hearing in the Judiciary Committee of the 110th Congress. Many have joined
me in expressing concern about the growing abuse of power within the executive branch. This President has
tried to take unto himself what has been termed absolute authority on issues such as surveillance, privacy,
torture, enemy combatants, and rendition.
"Today we are taking up the very important item of Presidential signing statements, which supposedly give him
the power to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with the Congress and signed into law.
"All too often, the Administration has engaged in these practices under a veil of secrecy. This is a constitutional
issue that no self-respecting Federal legislature should tolerate, and so today we announce that, out of this
oversight hearing, we will begin an investigation of the specific use and abuse of Presidential signing
statements.
"In particular, I intend to ask the Administration to identify each statutory provision that they have not agreed
with in signing statements and to specify precisely what they have done as a result.
"Now, an example. If the President claims he is exempt from the McCain amendment ban on torture, we need
to know whether and where he has permitted it.
"We want to know what he has done to carry out his claims to be exempt from many other laws such as
oversight and reporting requirements under the PATRIOT Act, numerous affirmative action obligations and the
requirement that the Government obtain a search warrant before opening the mail of American citizens.
"So I am going to ask my staff, along with that of my friend the Ranking Member Lamar Smith's, staff--those
two staffs--to meet with the Department of Justice and the White House so we can get to the bottom of this
matter.
"And we will and we must do this, and we are not going to take 'no' for an answer. We are a coequal branch of
Government, and if our system of checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative that we understand
how the executive branch is enforcing or ignoring the bills that are signed into law.
"Last summer the American Bar Association appointed a distinguished task force which carefully studied the
problem. They found out as of last year President Bush had challenged no fewer than 800 legal provisions, far
more than all previous Presidents combined. This is in a total of 148 signing statements that we have here for
our Members' examination.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have reached a unanimous conclusion which was endorsed by the entire
American Bar Association House of Delegates: this use of signing statements is 'contrary to the rule of law
and our constitutional system of separation of powers.'
"Today, in an oversight hearing, we are here to explore that conclusion and then to take action.
"We are talking about a systematic extra-constitutional mode of conduct by the White House. The conduct
threatens to deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any democracy, the right to elect
Representatives who determine what the law is, subject only to the President's veto.
"That does not mean having a President sign those laws but then say that he is free to carry them out or not as
only he sees fit."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Aug. 6th, 2007
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), made sure that the panel's oversight
hearing held on January 31st, 2007--the first under the 110th Congress--would be a discussion of the Bush
Administration's Presidential Signing Statements.
Exactly what these Signing Statements are, and how they are being abused by the Bush White House, was
covered by Rep. Conyers in the eloquent introductory speech he delivered to the panel on this important topic.
For some reason, the transcript of this oversight hearing was only recently published on July 16th, 2007. But
seven months later the Conyers speech remains instructive, and is essential reading for any true lover of
liberty.
We quote from Conyers' speech below:
"We are holding our first oversight hearing in the Judiciary Committee of the 110th Congress. Many have joined
me in expressing concern about the growing abuse of power within the executive branch. This President has
tried to take unto himself what has been termed absolute authority on issues such as surveillance, privacy,
torture, enemy combatants, and rendition.
"Today we are taking up the very important item of Presidential signing statements, which supposedly give him
the power to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with the Congress and signed into law.
"All too often, the Administration has engaged in these practices under a veil of secrecy. This is a constitutional
issue that no self-respecting Federal legislature should tolerate, and so today we announce that, out of this
oversight hearing, we will begin an investigation of the specific use and abuse of Presidential signing
statements.
"In particular, I intend to ask the Administration to identify each statutory provision that they have not agreed
with in signing statements and to specify precisely what they have done as a result.
"Now, an example. If the President claims he is exempt from the McCain amendment ban on torture, we need
to know whether and where he has permitted it.
"We want to know what he has done to carry out his claims to be exempt from many other laws such as
oversight and reporting requirements under the PATRIOT Act, numerous affirmative action obligations and the
requirement that the Government obtain a search warrant before opening the mail of American citizens.
"So I am going to ask my staff, along with that of my friend the Ranking Member Lamar Smith's, staff--those
two staffs--to meet with the Department of Justice and the White House so we can get to the bottom of this
matter.
"And we will and we must do this, and we are not going to take 'no' for an answer. We are a coequal branch of
Government, and if our system of checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative that we understand
how the executive branch is enforcing or ignoring the bills that are signed into law.
"Last summer the American Bar Association appointed a distinguished task force which carefully studied the
problem. They found out as of last year President Bush had challenged no fewer than 800 legal provisions, far
more than all previous Presidents combined. This is in a total of 148 signing statements that we have here for
our Members' examination.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have reached a unanimous conclusion which was endorsed by the entire
American Bar Association House of Delegates: this use of signing statements is 'contrary to the rule of law
and our constitutional system of separation of powers.'
"Today, in an oversight hearing, we are here to explore that conclusion and then to take action.
"We are talking about a systematic extra-constitutional mode of conduct by the White House. The conduct
threatens to deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any democracy, the right to elect
Representatives who determine what the law is, subject only to the President's veto.
"That does not mean having a President sign those laws but then say that he is free to carry them out or not as
only he sees fit."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!