Outrage, latest

You may have heard that W has never vetoed a bill. Thanks to the reporting of Charlie Savage, political affairs report for the Boston Globe, we now know why. Go here to hear Terry Gross' interview with him. Or follow the link to original story.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=9-May-06

Savage says what he does instead is issue "signing statements," technical legal statements entered into the Federal Record (public records, there's a link to them on the Fresh Air site), that tell the executive branch how to interpret the law. He's done this 750 times to date. His Dad did it about 240 times in 4 years. Clinton issued 140-something in 8 years.

What he has done that is different than before is declare whether he will follow the law or not, based on his interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, he signs a very popular bill, like the torture ban, rather than take the political hit in vetoing it, then he instructs affected executive agencies that they can ignore the ban because only the President, as Commander in Chief, has the constitutional authority to instruct the military and preclude certain activities, like torture.

But it doesn't stop there. Bush has essentially set aside any law Congress enacts to restrict or instruct the executive branch. This includes affirmative action, whistle blower statutes, inspector general acts, and torture bans. Basically, Bush says the congress has no right to oversee or restrict what he or the executive branch agencies do. It's based on an extreme view of presidential power, call the Unitary Executive, which is not the prevailing view in the Judiciary.

Hmmm. I thought only the Supreme Court had the authority to interpret the Constitution. And they've said many times in the last 70 years that Congress does indeed have the constitutional authority to restrict the President's power and only the court is the arbiter of the limits of checks and balances.

Cleverly, Bush has made these interpretations in areas where no one with standing is likely to sue or challenge the law in court. After all, the Pentagon is not likely to challenge the President's telling them to ignore a restrictive law. And because, no one but them was reading these things, no one said boo. Until Savage. Now Arlen Specter has taken notice and will hold hearing on this in June. Hopefully moderate Republicans will join with Dems to resist this.

Otherwise, the President is a dictator. Nice.