Unitary Executive
Submitted by early-bird on July 23, 2006 - 5:32pm.
ABA | Congressional oversight | Constitution | Unitary Executive | Civil Liberties
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/23/162526/131
EXCERPTS:
ABA to Congress: Sue Bush
by FWIW
Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:25:26 PM PDT
There have been several posts on dKos in recent weeks about signing statements: Pontificator's Professor Epstein Sounds the Alarm on Signing Statements, Daisy Cutter's Another Day, Another Signing Statement, Truth4AChange's American Monarchy, and my own Unitary Executive = Imperial Presidency?. These posts present some of the arguments that have been made to show how and why signing statements are unconstitutional. Yesterday I discovered that we "liberal bloggers" are in good company. U.S. News has posted an online article stating "Bar association task force urges Congress to push for judicial review of Bush signing statements. Yes, that Bar, the American Bar Association (ABA).
http://www.constitutionproject.org/article.cfm?messageID=197
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news060506.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
"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...
The Repubs probably need bin Laden to stay alive as their cause célèbre.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
The US presidency, the original executive presidency, was written for General Washington. Which, I note in passing, makes non-political generals the archetype of presidents.
Washington considered it his job to go out and enforce whatever law (e.g. a whiskey tax) that Congress felt like passing. He didn't consider it his job to ignore laws that he felt were unconstitutional.
What he actually did if he thought Congress passed an unconstitutional law was to veto it. In fact he cast his very first veto on a Federalist law that the Jeffersonian Republicans convinced him was unconstitutional. Remember, the Jeffersonian Republicans didn't believe that the Supreme Court was empowered to declare laws unconstitutional.
Now, if Bush thought the FISA, or any other law, was unconstitutional, he should have gone to court about it, or, if it came up on his watch, he should have vetoed it. There is no warrant for the president being above the law. Not George Washington, or George Bush, or any other president.
Does anyone really think Bush will catch bin Ladin?