As the New York Times revealed Monday, President Obama has instructed administration officials not to rely on the hundreds of signing statements issued by his predecessor. That move should please John McCain. After all, the Republican presidential candidate not only pledged "never to issue a signing statement." Back in 2005, McCain was doubled-crossed when President Bush issued a signing statement effectively negating the Detainee Treatment Act he authored.

In his Times piece, Charlie Savage (who earlier won a Pulitzer Prize while at the Boston Globe for breaking the signing statement story) reported that President Obama "ordered executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute." Obama's worry is well-founded. After all, in number and nature, George W. Bush's use of signing statements to skirt laws passed by Congress is simply unprecedented:

Mr. Bush frequently used signing statements to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, claiming that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a torture ban and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counter-terrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act.

Dating back to the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. Presidents began doing so more frequently starting with the Reagan administration.

But Mr. Bush broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 bill sections over his eight years in office -- about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

But while President Obama did not today or during the 2008 presidential campaign foreswear the use of signing statement, his opponent did. In November 2007, John McCain announced:

"I would never issue a signing statement. It is wrong, and it should not be done."

McCain's unequivocal stand isn't just a matter of principle; it's quite personal. After all, when it came to the torture of terror detainees, George W. Bush stabbed John McCain in the back using the stiletto of a signing statement.

Continue reading »

Even in its last throes, the Bush administration continues its uninterrupted lawlessness. As two recent stories by Charlie Savage of the New York Times revealed, President Bush ignored Congressional statutes requiring privacy disclosures by his Department of Homeland Security and non-discrimination in hiring by faith-based groups receiving federal funds. In twice turning his back on the rule of law, Bush again resorted to his favorite executive power-grabbing tools, the signing statement and "interpretation" by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.

Savage, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 2006 expose of Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements, revealed last Friday that the President is at again. The White House informed Congress that it is bypassing a law passed as part of the package of recommendation from the 9/11 Commission. Designed to prevent political interference with the Department of Homeland Security:

The August 2007 law requires the agency’s chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress “without any prior comment or amendment” by superiors at the department or the White House.

But in a move ranking the Republican on Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA) deemed "unconstitutional" and "dictatorial," DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff told Congress the administration would not "apply this provision strictly" because it infringed on the president’s powers. And as Savage detailed, President Bush used a signing statement to thwart the will of Congress - and the law of the land:

The Bush administration defended the decision not to obey the statute. Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, said its legal view was consistent with what presidents of both parties had long maintained.

Mr. Ablin also said the administration had told Congress that the provision would be unconstitutional, but Congress passed the legislation - which enacted recommendations of the 9/11 Commission - without making the requested change. So the administration decided to sign the bill and fix what Mr. Ablin called its "defects" later.

In condoning illegal discrimination in hiring by religious charities receiving funds from American taxpayers, President Bush turned to his Office of Legal Counsel.

Continue reading »

When President Bush receives a bill he doesn't like, instead of issuing a veto and challenging Congress to override him as School House Rock would have you believe, he issues a private "signing statement" setting forth how he plans on interpreting the new law. The House Armed Services Committee has just released a report on the practice and the conclusions are not encouraging.

From the report (.pdf)

The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week

“78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”

“Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said.

As the report makes clear, not all signing statements are bad. Sometimes they're useful and entirely appropriate, and sometimes they're used for naked power grabs that are nearly impossible to challenge. Well, it appears 78% of President Bush's fall into the latter category.

That begs the obvious question: Which laws has Bush challenged?

1. A provision in the 2008 defense bill that would make it illegal to build permanent bases in Iraq. The White House is currently pushing for 58 bases.

2. A bill outlawing the use of torture on detainees. McCain did a lot of grandstanding on the day this law "passed," but he hasn't said anything since about Bush's refusal to abide it.

3. A provision in the Patriot Act that requires the White House to inform Congress on how the FBI was using it's new spying powers. This one naturally led to the FBI severely abusing their power.

etc. etc.

You know what happens after the President is called out on his lawbreaking, right? The White House should expect Congress' Strongly Worded Letter™ any day now.

[HT: Satyam]

h/t Heather

Download | play Download | play

Dan Abrams continues his fantastic series started yesterday by looking how Bush has effectively subverted the system of government and eliminated any controls or oversight of the executive branch by the use of signing statements. Jonathan Turley and Charlie Savage join in to assess the damage done.

Jonathan Schwarz has a great catch on Bush's signing statements.

When Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe first began writing stories about Bush's presidential signing statements last year, former Bush administration lawyers told us not to be concerned:

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement..."

As a new story by Savage explains, that's apparently now inoperative:

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, defended Bush's use of signing statements and his expansive view of the president's constitutional powers.

"We are executing the law as we believe we are empowered to do so," Fratto said. "The signing statements certainly do and should have an impact. They are real."

So which is it? Maybe some enterprising White House reporter can ask Tony Snow about it....

No, not Michael Weiner Savage's lesser known brother. Charlie Savage is the Boston Globe journalist that broke the story on presidential signing statements.

Glenn Greenwald has a nice write up of the significance of Savage's reporting: (watch a short ad for site pass)

...as I've noted many times, Savage was one of the very few journalists in the country who understood, investigated and reported on the radical theories of executive power embraced by this President. And once he began reporting on those abuses, he was relentless in his efforts to draw public attention to the administration's conduct.

On March 24, 2006, Savage published an article -- entitled "Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement" -- which was the first article to report on Bush's issuance of a signing statement in connection with Congress' renewal of the Patriot Act. It was in that signing statement where the President expressly proclaimed the power to ignore legal requirements imposed by Congress requiring the FBI to report on its use of National Security Letters -- the very provisions which, it was revealed just last month, the FBI has been systematically ignoring as it spies on American citizens. As Savage wrote in that article: "The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law."

Brian Ross has the scoop at ABC.

The Blotter:

The FBI repeatedly failed to follow the strict guidelines of the Patriot Act when its agents took advantage of a new provision allowing the FBI to obtain phone and financial records without a court order, according to a report to be made public Friday by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The report, in classified and unclassified versions, remains closely held, but Washington officials who have seen it tell ABC News it documents "numerous lapses" and describe it as "scathing" and "not a pretty picture for the FBI."

FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to brief Congress on the report at noon.

The officials say the inspector general found the FBI underreported by at least 20 percent the use of the controversial provision, known as National Security Letters, NSLs, in required disclosures to Congress. Read more...

Lest we forget President Bush issued one of those infamous signing statements back in February 2006 when he signed the Patriot Act reauthorization, effectively nullifying the provisions Congress agreed upon so that these kinds of abuses wouldn't occur. Will that be their legal defense? I think so.

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

Washington Post has more...

State of the Day: Happy Surge Day, kill more people, spend more money!...can you say "Wag The Dog"?

Petty Larseny: Signing Statements may define the battle over congressional oversight

Politics in the Zeros: China and India face up to Global Warming

CleanUpWashington: Exposing phony grassroots groups, also know as "astroturf," will soon become easier if an important provision in the Senate's lobbying reform bill remains intact. Take action!

HOLY CRAP: Letterman on Robertson's communication with God...The Christian Right and the War on America."...Poland’s Shame, America’s Future...Here's an outfit which believes that contraception is a form of abortion and that all family planning decisions should be left to Providence

TAPPED: Dinesh D'Souza is a "blame America firster"

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them--Albert Einstein

A LIBERAL DOSE: While we're at it, let's not forget the story of little Jeffy at the White House...and speaking of houses, could there be anything scarier than trick or treating at Mark Foley's house? The scandal is getting crazier by the minute. Luckily, Newt Gingrich has an explanation, while Sully professes confusion, and the NYT has trouble making distinctions.

King of Zembla: About that October surprise...

Facing South: Blackwater and Iraq's contracting outlaws

Welcome to Pottersville: Assclowns of the Week

Secrecy News: Congressional Research Service on Bush's use of signing statements

d r i f t g l a s s: Why I would watch monkeys reading Kleenex boxes...

This Onion piece, by way of Michael Froomkin, is unfortunately hilarious.

In a decisive 1–0 decision Monday, President Bush voted to grant the president the constitutional power to grant himself additional powers.

"As president, I strongly believe that my first duty as president is to support and serve the president," Bush said during a televised address from the East Room of the White House shortly after signing his executive order. "I promise the American people that I will not abuse this new power, unless it becomes necessary to grant myself the power to do so at a later time."

The Presidential Empowerment Act, which the president hand-drafted on his own Oval Office stationery and promptly signed into law, provides Bush with full authority to permit himself to authorize increased jurisdiction over the three branches of the federal government, provided that the president considers it in his best interest to do so.

"In a time of war, the president must have the power he needs to make the tough decisions, including, if need be, the decision to grant himself even more power," Bush said. "To do otherwise would be playing into the hands of our enemies."

Considering Bush's penchant for signing statements, which highlight which the Bush has decided not to follow, this doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched as it should.

--Guest Post by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report