www.boston.com/news/specials/savage_signing_statements/
-
-
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/signing_statements/
-
"Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum: They assess use of signing statements"
By Charlie Savage, (Boston) Globe Staff, December 22, 2007
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain says that if he is elected president, he would consider himself bound to obey treaties because they are "the law of the land." But Mitt Romney says he would consider himself free to bypass treaties if they "impinge" on his powers as commander in chief.
Democrat Hillary Clinton says "in very rare instances," she might attach a so-called signing statement to a bill reserving a right to bypass "provisions that contradict the Constitution." But Bill Richardson says if a president thinks that parts of a bill are unconstitutional, then "he should veto it," not issue a signing statement.
These contrasts are found in the answers to a Globe survey of the presidential candidates about the limits of executive power. The study is the most comprehensive effort to date to get the candidates to declare in specific terms what checks and balances they would respect, and whether they would reverse the Bush administration's legacy of expanded presidential powers.
"These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer," said Illinois Senator Barack Obama in responding to the survey. "The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with the responsibility - particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this administration."
In 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not asked about presidential power, and they volunteered nothing about their attitude toward the issue to voters. Yet once in office, they immediately began seeking out ways to concentrate more unchecked power in the White House - not just for themselves, but also for their successors.
Bush has bypassed laws and treaties that he said infringed on his wartime powers, expanded his right to keep information secret from Congress and the courts, centralized greater control over the government in the White House, imprisoned US citizens without charges, and used signing statements to challenge more laws than all predecessors combined.
Legal specialists say decisions by the next president - either to keep using the expanded powers Bush and Cheney developed, or to abandon their legal and political precedents - will help determine whether a stronger presidency becomes permanent.
"The sleeper issue in this campaign involves the proper scope of executive power," said Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor.
Six Democrats and three Republicans provided answers to the Globe survey. Three GOP candidates did not respond to the survey: Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson.
The Giuliani campaign instead provided a general statement by its top legal adviser, former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson. He said that a president "must be free to defend the nation," but provided no specific details about what limits, if any, Giuliani believes he would have to obey as president - in national security or otherwise.
The refusal by some candidates to answer the questions drew a rebuke from Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has made strict adherence to the Constitution a centerpiece of his campaign.
"What are they trying to hide?" Paul asked. "Why are they embarrassed to answer the questions?"
Of the nine candidates who answered, Romney expressed the most positive view of Bush's approach to presidential power.
"The Bush administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11," Romney said. "The administration's strong view on executive power may well have contributed to that fact."
By contrast, the other two Republicans who responded - McCain and Paul - both expressed reservations about legal claims Bush has made. For example, both rejected the idea that a president, as commander-in-chief, has "inherent" power to wiretap Americans without warrants, regardless of federal statutes, as the administration has argued.
"I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law," said McCain, an Arizona senator.
Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who studies executive power, said Romney's answers suggest that the former Massachusetts governor will probably embrace the Bush administration's legal theories on executive power.
"It's fair to say that the Democrats, Senator McCain, and Representative Paul are united in supporting a reinvigoration of checks and balances and the reassertion of a meaningful congressional role in national security affairs," said Shane.
But there were some disagreements that fell along party lines, such as the scope of the president's power when it comes to troop deployments.
McCain and Paul suggested that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to "micromanage" wars by capping the number of troops that the president may deploy to a particular nation, but most Democrats said Congress has the authority to do so.
Among the Democrats, only former North Carolina senator John Edwards refused to say that he would be bound to obey a law limiting troop deployments, instead saying, "I do not envision this scenario arising when I am president."
Similarly, Romney talked generally about a president's need to both "respect" Congress's constitutional powers over war while also remaining "faithful to commander-in-chief powers," but he declined to say whether he believed he could disregard a law capping troop deployments.
The troop deployment question was just one of several in which both Edwards and Romney declined to define the limits of presidential power. Edwards criticized Bush's "abuses," but did not categorically rule out invoking the same expansive theories of executive power in other circumstances.
But the other two leading Democrats - Clinton, a New York senator, and Obama - were both more definitive. Along with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Clinton and Obama endorsed a more restrained approach to executive power than Bush.
The Democrats said a president must obey laws and treaties that restrict surveillance and interrogation. They also said that the Constitution does not allow a president to hold US citizens without charges as "enemy combatants" - even though Bush has won court rulings upholding his right to indefinitely imprison citizens suspected of terrorist links.
There were some differences among the Democrats. For example, Clinton, a veteran of congressional investigations of her husband's administration during the 1990's, embraced a stronger view of a president's power to use executive privilege to keep information secret from Congress than some rivals.
And while all the Democrats condemned Bush's use of signing statements, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama each said that they would use them too - just less aggressively. Obama said the problem with Bush's signing statements is not the device itself, but rather that Bush has invoked legal theories that most constitutional scholars consider "dubious" when reserving his alleged right to bypass certain laws.
"No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush administration has gone much further than that," Obama said.
By contrast, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson called for an end to signing statements altogether.
Among the Republicans, their stance was echoed by McCain and Paul, both of whom said they would never issue a signing statement. Romney, by contrast, praised signing statements as "an important presidential practice."
-
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/
----------
Barack Obama's Q&A
By Charlie Savage, Boston Globe Staff, December 20, 2007
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
Disagree strongly.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.
Some further points:
The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University
Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)
Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.
----------
Joseph Biden Q&A
By Charlie Savage, Boston Globe Staff, December 20, 2007
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
No. The President is not above the law, he is bound by valid acts of Congress. Our laws state clearly that no one can wiretap Americans without a warrant. By willfully authorizing warrantless wiretaps of Americans, the President violated the law, and he should be held accountable.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Let’s not kid ourselves: any military conflict with Iran is likely to become major.
A so-called “surgical” strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks. It would mean bombing Iran’s radar sites and air force, repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country, securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond.
What looks “limited” to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war.
There’s only thing worse than a poorly planned, intentional war: an unplanned, unintentional war.
It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.
They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down and allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die – and ensure broader public support.
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. Thus, the President has no authority to use force in Iran unless Iran attacks the United States, or there is an imminent threat of such an attack. The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No. Congress has the power to raise and support Armies, and to provide and maintain a Navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces (Article I, Section 8, clauses 12-14). Pursuant to these powers, the Congress may limit and regulate the deployment of forces.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I would not. The American people are best served when the branches of government work together, respecting and observing the separation of powers envisioned by our Founding Fathers. As President I will develop a relationship of trust and cooperation with the legislature. I will work hard to ensure that the laws they pass respect and take into account the powers of the Presidency, but I will not use a signing statement to attempt to override a valid act of Congress.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. The Supreme Court resolved this issue in a case called "Hamdi" in 2004. An American citizen held as an enemy combatant has a constitutional right to due process to determine whether his detention is legal and is adequately based on fact.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
No. The Executive Privilege only covers communications between the President and his advisors. Even when the privilege does apply, it is not absolute; it may be outweighed by the public’s interest in the fair administration of justice.
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No. The President must comply with all valid acts of Congress. That’s why I’ve introduced the National Security with Justice Act, unequivocally banning waterboarding and other forms of torture.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
Treaties are the supreme law of the land under Article VI of the Constitution. The President must faithfully execute them, just as he must faithfully execute laws approved by Congress. He has no power to disregard treaties.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
I disagree categorically with Mr. Gonzales. The Constitution guarantees the right of habeas corpus unless in the case of rebellion or invasion it is suspended. My National Security with Justice Act reinforces this Constitutional right by extending by statute meaningful habeas review for all Guantanamo detainees.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
The Bush Administration has consistently violated the separation of powers and many parts of its national security policy are a bad idea. Warrantless wiretapping, the extraordinary rendition program, the CIA black site program, the “enhanced interrogation” technique program are just several examples of the President overstepping the bounds of Executive Power, and all of them were bad ideas.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
(From staff) Sen. Biden relies a great deal on his own experience as a Constitutional law professor and the Chairman or Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, but he discusses legal issues frequently with Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School; Walter Dellinger, acting Solicitor General for Bill Clinton; and Erwin Chermerinsky and Chris Schroeder, both of Duke Law School.
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, they should answer these questions. Sharing the vision of my presidency with voters is what campaigning is all about. As part of the primary process, candidates are able to explain their policy positions and beliefs regarding governance in real detail.
----------
Hillary Clinton Q&A
By Charlie Savage, (Boston) Globe Staff, December 20, 2007
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
No. The President is not above the law.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No. Although Congress cannot change the President’s role as the Nation's Commander in Chief, the Constitution expressly gives Congress war powers, including the power to raise and support armies and to establish rules and regulations to govern them. These powers, among others, give Congress the authority to cap the number of troops deployed as well as set minimum home-stays. Similar limitations have been passed throughout our country's history and Presidents have adhered to them.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto. I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
I fundamentally believe that our constitutional system depends upon each branch striving to accommodate the interests of the other, and the President should seek to accommodate legitimate congressional requests for information. I also believe in an open transparent government that fulfills its obligation to share as much information as possible with the public. But it is settled law that certain limited "communications made by presidential advisors in the course of preparing advice for the President, come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President."
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
The international human rights treaties that the U.S. has joined represent an historic advance for the cause of human freedom. Under our Constitution, they also are the law of the land, and the President has the same duty to comply with them as with any other valid law.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
I disagree with Attorney General Gonzales. I have long believed that the right to habeas corpus offers fundamental protection against unchecked government power. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Supreme Court should reaffirm this principle in the Boumediene case now pending and correct the mistake Congress made when it attempted to rescind habeas corpus through the Military Commissions Act.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress's prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration's view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
I have a large and diverse group of advisers.
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
I am happy to tell voters when I stand on the issues. I have a long record in public life, and I leave it to the voters to judge.
----------
"House panel challenges extent of Bush's executive privilege: President's powers at issue in case of fired prosecutors"
By Laurie Kellman, Associated Press, April 11, 2008, (via The Boston Globe Online).
WASHINGTON - President Bush's refusal to let two confidants provide information to Congress about fired federal prosecutors represents the most expansive view of executive privilege since Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee told a federal judge yesterday.
Lawyers for the Democratic-led panel argued in court documents that Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers are not protected from subpoenas last year that sought information about the dismissals.
The legal filing came in a lawsuit that pits the legislative branch against the executive in a fight over a president's powers.
The committee is seeking the testimony as it tries to make a case that the White House directed the firing of nine US attorneys because they were not supportive enough of Republicans' political agenda.
The White House says such information is private and covered by executive privilege, the doctrine intended to protect the confidentiality of presidential communications.
House lawyers told US District Judge John D. Bates that subpoenaed White House officials cannot skip hearings as Miers did during the committee's investigation. Further, they said, any documents or testimony believed to be covered by the privilege must be itemized for Congress's assessment.
Because executive privilege is not a right spelled out in the Constitution, the legal issues are murky and disputes are normally resolved politically. The suit is risky for both sides: Courts have not been kind to the presidency in fights over subpoenas, and Congress could have its power to demand information curtailed.
The White House has said Bush was not personally involved in deciding which US prosecutors to fire and that any White House communications on the matter are off-limits under the privilege. Presidential counsel Fred Fielding declared Miers and Bolten immune from prosecution because their refusal to comply with the subpoenas was done at the White House's direction under the privilege.
He also did not provide a privilege log, arguing that revealing the information sought would compromise the president's access to candid advice.
The result, the committee wrote, is White House defiance of congressional oversight unseen since the presidential intransigence that led to Richard Nixon's resignation.
"Not since the days of Watergate have the Congress and the federal courts been confronted with such an expansive view of executive privilege as the one asserted by the current presidential administration and the individual defendants in this case," the House's filing stated.
The idea that Miers could disregard an order to appear at a hearing simply at the president's request suggests a return to the sentiment expressed in Nixon's statement, as quoted in a 1977 New York Times interview, that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal," the House lawyers wrote.
Even during Watergate, however, the courts were restrained. Nixon reluctantly allowed his aides to testify but refused to surrender his tape recordings. The Supreme Court ordered the tapes turned over but avoided the question of whether presidents can refuse demands from Congress.
The House in February voted 223-32 to hold Bolten and Miers in contempt. Most Republicans boycotted the vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to refer the matter to a federal prosecutor. Mukasey refused, and the committee sued.
----------
President Obama
"Obama rebukes Bush on signing statements"
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor, March 9, 2009, 6:19 P.M.
Rebuking his predecessor for the second time today, President Obama declared that he will not use "signing statements" to overturn laws because he disagrees on policy grounds, but only when he strongly believes they are unconstitutional.
In a presidential memo (read it here), Obama also ordered his top executive branch officials to seek advice from Attorney General Eric Holder about whether to enforce the hundreds of statements proffered by Bush that critics say he used to ignore bills properly passed by Congress and expand his power, particularly on national security.
"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements," wrote Obama, who also overturned Bush's restrictions today on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," Obama pledged.
The president also promised to "take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable" to let Congress know of his constitutional concerns about bills before they pass. He also said he would clearly lay out his constitutional objection in any signing statements he does issue; Bush was harshly criticized for issuing signing statements with vague reasons.
A series of stories in the Globe, which eventually won the Pulitzer Prize, journalism's highest honor, pointed out that Bush used signing statements to disobey hundreds of bills approved by Congress on a wide range of issues.
They emerged as an issue after he used such statements to suggest he could bypass a law on harsh interrogations of terrorism detainees, and a law requiring the FBI to tell Congress how it was using expanded police powers under the Patriot Act. Bush also issued them on a wide range of issues including affirmative action, immigration, whistle-blower protections, and safeguards against political interference in scientific research. The statements are official documents, recorded in the federal register, in which the president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow.
During the presidential campaign, Obama blasted Bush for how he used signing statements, but reserved the right to issue them, himself, in a more restrained way. Republican presidential John McCain said he would not use them at all.
While the Bush administration firmly defended its use of the statements as lawful and appropriate, they generated a vigorous debate on Capitol Hill and legal circles. The American Bar Association passed a resolution urging Bush and future presidents not to "misuse" them to disregard laws, calling such statements "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs asserted today that Obama will return to the traditional way the statements have been used "for two centuries in order for presidents to make known constitutional problems with ideas that are in legislation without necessarily dealing a veto to the entire piece of legislation."
"I think the previous administration issued hundreds and hundreds of signing statements that specifically entailed ...that people disregard portions of legislation or the intent of Congress," Gibbs told reporters. "This president will use signing statements in order to go back to what has previously been done, and that is to enumerate constitutional problems ... but not ask that laws be disallowed simply by executive fiat."
-
www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/signingstatements.pdf
-
----------
-
"Breaking from Bush"
-
www.boston.com/news/politics/gallery/030909_bush_obama_policies/
-
Gallery: "Dismantling President Bush's policies"
-
----------
A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
"Obama: Executive power goes to his head"
August 13, 2009
During the campaign, Barack Obama said signing statements - presidential directives on how legislation should be interpreted - shouldn’t be used as an end run around Congress. But now four Democratic House chairmen are objecting to a recent signing statement in which President Obama said he doesn’t consider himself bound by congressional instructions directing the administration to push the World Bank and International Monetary Fund toward certain labor, environmental, health, and education goals. Although Obama has said he will still honor Congress’s will, the four chairmen want him to quit asserting even an abstract right to ignore such congressional conditions. And if he doesn’t? Then, warn US Representatives Barney Frank, David Obey, Nita Lowey, and Gregory Meeks, House support won’t be there for future funding. This looks mostly like congressional huffing, puffing, and bluffing. Still, if there are vital principles at play, a presidential veto is the appropriate response. On lesser matters, a little diplomacy should suffice to get his fellow Democrats on the same page. And if not, abstract reservations would best go unstated. The president can’t be allowed to make law on his own.
----------
No comments:
Post a Comment