Presidential Signing Statements: Bush's Law

Photo from source, Boston.com

This blog has only been in existence since June 2, 2007. But I've been interested in politics for far longer than that, and most intensely since George W. Bush was selected President. I've grumbled and groused for many years, and now I finally have an outlet for expression. So, from time to time, I like to revisit some of the things that irk me in politics, even if there isn't necessarily a story on it in today's news.

Friend and contributor, John Asmussen, sent me the following article, because of his own irritation with the issue of signing statements. As John pointed out to me, this President has used his power of veto precious few times (a total of six so far, five of those in the Democratic 110th Congress), and instead just announces what parts of a law he is not going to follow.

Bush apologists will tell you that Bush isn't the first President to use signing statements. That is true. But other Presidents tended to use them to "tie a bow" on the law they'd just signed, a platitude, something they want to say about it. Bush, on the other hand, announces what parts of the law he is not bound by. That's virtually unprecedented, and used by Bush an astonishing amount of the time.

From John: "[One of] the only bill[s] he ever vetoed was, while obviously pandering to his evangelical Christian "base," Federal funding for stem cell research. But why bother? [He can] just pass the bill and then ignore it. His imperial majesty, as The Decider, has taken upon himself the Emperor's robes, or at least the robes of the Supreme Court Justices, and interprets laws that Congress has passed, often with compromises necessary for passage, but which are subsequently ignored.

Here is the article with some background.

[Excerpt]

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. . .

Read more at: Boston.com