Cafferty: Bush And His Signing Statements: He's The Decider!

Jack railed against Bush's outrageous abuse of this practice and what was great were all the email responses Cafferty received. [media id=15585] -WM

Cafferty-signing-statements.jpg Jack railed against Bush's outrageous abuse of this practice and what was great were all the email responses Cafferty received.

icon Download -WMP icon Download -QT

Cafferty: Some members of Congress want to know why President Bush claims he can sometimes just ignore the law if he feels like it. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is holding hearings on Mr. Bush's use of something called bill-signing statements.

The president reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security or constitutional grounds. President Bush has done this 110 times to challenge 750 separate laws passed by the Congress, including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Specter calls it a challenge to quote the plain language of the Constitution. And Senator Dianne Feinstein says if the president's going to nullify part of the law, it should be done using the veto, something President Bush has never done. But the White House insists it's important for the president to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions of laws, because, of course, he's the decider and he can decide these things just by looking at them.

The Justice Department, of course, also defended the president. No surprise there. It's the president's Justice Department. You think Alberto Gonzales is going to come out and say President Bush is abusing his power? Not a chance.

Here's the question. When is it OK for the president to revise, interpret or disregard a law?

( h/t Mike for putting the clip together)


About John Amato

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.