In A Word – Disdain When a man swears to defend the Constitution, he should honor his oath.
Gerald Eisman
July 24, 2006
Disdain. To regard or treat with haughty contempt; despise. 2. To consider or reject as beneath oneself.
In a report issued yesterday (July 23, 2006) George W. Bush, president of the United States and nominal leader of the free world, has issued more challenges to provisions of laws than all the other presidents in the nation's history combined. In the report issued by an American Bar Association task force, president Bush's leaning toward writing exceptions to laws he has signed is a direct violation of the constitution he has sworn to defend.
Members of the task force describe such actions that Bush has taken as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances and they urge Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such actions.
Michael Greco, president of the ABA (American Bar Association) said, "This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy. If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."
When one thinks of the laws signed that included signing statements by Bush, it becomes clear where the panel members are coming from. Laws such as a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot act, the whistle-blower protection act and the banning of U.S. troops engaging rebels in Columbia can all be ignored at the whim of one man and his cohorts. So much then for protections.
"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," said presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."
In a technical sense, perhaps that statement has a modicum of validity, but the man has signed numerous pieces of legislation, then issued a statement (in writing) where he reserves the right not to enforce or execute parts of the law on the grounds they might infringe on the presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions. That premise comes from a man who has absolutely no training in the law, therefore is totally unqualified to make such a determination in the first instance.
White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said in a statement last month that, "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions (of enacted laws)." A better, saner, and more legitimate course of action would be to send the law back to congress for further study and clarification if there was any question concerning constitutionality. The panel noted, and rightly, signing statements should not be used as a substitute for a veto.
To further illustrate the intricate foible of these actions, it should be pointed out that former president Ronald Reagan (another Republican) was the first president to use such statements as a strategic weapon. At that time, the use of such statements was encouraged by the then administration lawyer, Samuel Alito. Yes, the same man who today sits on the bench of the Supreme Court appointed by the current president, George Bush.
In its report, the panel wrote, "The president's constitutional duty is to enforce the laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal." It went on to state, unequivocally, the Constitution is not what the president says it is.
What impact this report will have on the administration is questionable. Very early on in his administration, Bush and his conservative cronies held that the ABA is too far left and is founded in a Liberal bias. Because of these deeply held feelings, early in the first term the administration ended the association's special role in evaluating judicial nominations.
What we have here is total disdain for rules and laws and the very Constitution of the nation. Based on his own prejudices, George Bush has, according to Neil Sonnett, chairman of the task force and prominent Miami attorney, accumulated and written over 800 challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress. Many of the challenges have been lodged under a little known theory, the idea that congressional checks on the president's power are limited.
The time has come for the people to make it clear that no man is above the law and must face responsibility for his own acts. When a man is wrong, or does harm to those who are affected by decisions made and refuses to recognize and correct those misguided decisions, he should either resign his position of be removed. Even King George.
In a report issued yesterday (July 23, 2006) George W. Bush, president of the United States and nominal leader of the free world, has issued more challenges to provisions of laws than all the other presidents in the nation's history combined. In the report issued by an American Bar Association task force, president Bush's leaning toward writing exceptions to laws he has signed is a direct violation of the constitution he has sworn to defend.
Members of the task force describe such actions that Bush has taken as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances and they urge Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such actions.
Michael Greco, president of the ABA (American Bar Association) said, "This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy. If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."
When one thinks of the laws signed that included signing statements by Bush, it becomes clear where the panel members are coming from. Laws such as a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot act, the whistle-blower protection act and the banning of U.S. troops engaging rebels in Columbia can all be ignored at the whim of one man and his cohorts. So much then for protections.
"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," said presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."
In a technical sense, perhaps that statement has a modicum of validity, but the man has signed numerous pieces of legislation, then issued a statement (in writing) where he reserves the right not to enforce or execute parts of the law on the grounds they might infringe on the presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions. That premise comes from a man who has absolutely no training in the law, therefore is totally unqualified to make such a determination in the first instance.
White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said in a statement last month that, "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions (of enacted laws)." A better, saner, and more legitimate course of action would be to send the law back to congress for further study and clarification if there was any question concerning constitutionality. The panel noted, and rightly, signing statements should not be used as a substitute for a veto.
To further illustrate the intricate foible of these actions, it should be pointed out that former president Ronald Reagan (another Republican) was the first president to use such statements as a strategic weapon. At that time, the use of such statements was encouraged by the then administration lawyer, Samuel Alito. Yes, the same man who today sits on the bench of the Supreme Court appointed by the current president, George Bush.
In its report, the panel wrote, "The president's constitutional duty is to enforce the laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal." It went on to state, unequivocally, the Constitution is not what the president says it is.
What impact this report will have on the administration is questionable. Very early on in his administration, Bush and his conservative cronies held that the ABA is too far left and is founded in a Liberal bias. Because of these deeply held feelings, early in the first term the administration ended the association's special role in evaluating judicial nominations.
What we have here is total disdain for rules and laws and the very Constitution of the nation. Based on his own prejudices, George Bush has, according to Neil Sonnett, chairman of the task force and prominent Miami attorney, accumulated and written over 800 challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress. Many of the challenges have been lodged under a little known theory, the idea that congressional checks on the president's power are limited.
The time has come for the people to make it clear that no man is above the law and must face responsibility for his own acts. When a man is wrong, or does harm to those who are affected by decisions made and refuses to recognize and correct those misguided decisions, he should either resign his position of be removed. Even King George.
Print
Email
