In A Word – Gall: When a man puts himself above all others and says he's always right, that's gall.
Gerald Eisman
July 25, 2006
Gall: Outrageous insolence; effrontery.
According to Phillip Cooper, a leading expert on signing statements, George Bush raised 505 constitutional challenges in his first term alone. Still, until one week ago he hadn't issued one veto. Instead, he is using his signing statements to effectively nullify congressional legislation as it relates to the executive branch of the government. In his own mind, King George can use the statements as directives to the executive branch departments and agencies concerning how to implement the relevant law.
The truth is, Bush has been using the statements to bolster presidential powers in a devious but effective manner. His scheme had gone mostly unnoticed or ignored though reported in the weekly compilation of Presidential documents. The practice would still be unrecognized were it not for the media picking up on Bush's signing statement attempting to nullify John McCain's amendment regarding torture.
What is most remarkable is that Bush feels himself above the law, capable of ignoring what he disagrees with by issuing a signing statement, which, in his purview, protects him. For example, Senator McCain's amendment specifically forbids torture, but the president says the military may use torture anyway effectively rendering the bill totally unenforceable.
ON Dec. 30 A law was enacted stating interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Bush's signing statement said, the president, as commander-in-chief can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
On March 9, Law was enacted declaring the Justice department MUST give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the Patriot act to search homes and secretly seize papers. Bush signed the legislation but afterward,on his signing statement wrote, the president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he (Bush) decides it could impair national security of executive branch operations.
On Dec. 30, Congress said, When requested, scientific information "prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted (to congress) uncensored and without delay." Bush's statement: the president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he (Bush) decides its disclosures could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
With examples like those, is it any wonder the Congress has gotten outraged over the latest in Bush's gall? Things have gotten so very bad, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Arlen Specter (R-Pa), a leading and openly vocal opponent of the president's signing statements, promised a bill allowing Congress to sue Bush in federal court by the end of the week.
"We will submit legislation to the United States which will authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with a view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Specter declared on the floor of the Senate. Senator Specter's comment magnifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive powers on policy matters. Though numerous applications of signings rankle, the most irritating to Specter are the two that challenge provisions of the Patriot Act renewal and the legislation banning torture use on detainees.
The frequency of King George's use of signing statements had become very disturbing. Enactments by the Congress are presumed to be constitutional as the Department of Justice has so often stated. In a government brief extracted from the U.S. v Morrison, the statement "It is well established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality," says it all. That makes Bush's use of statements come into direct confrontation with the Justice Department.
It is unbelievable that Bush thinks himself above the law and can ignore what he decides is unconstitutional and then think his signing statement will protect him when called on the action. There is a more serious long-term danger to be considered here that is being ignored by the administration, and that is defiance of Congressional lawmaking. Eventually even a worm will turn and attack its tormentor. Bush is beginning to see what kind of consequences can arise from pushing lawmakers too hard.
Bush should read his recent history and pay strict attention to the Nixon era. Tricky Dick insisted on pushing the powers of the presidency to the brink. Sometimes he would attempt to go further, and that resulted in the Watergate fiasco and his downfall. Unfortunately, Nixon began his second term with even more grandiose plans than he displayed during his first four years, a stance that worried Congress. They got their opportunity to act and, well history tells the rest of the story.
Gall! It takes a vast amount to behave as George Bush has but until now he has managed to escape the consequences. Congress, however, regardless of party, unifies when their authority is challenged or their elective future is placed in jeopardy. That is the case now, and King George, gall and all, is facing a sudden and shattering come-uppance.
According to Phillip Cooper, a leading expert on signing statements, George Bush raised 505 constitutional challenges in his first term alone. Still, until one week ago he hadn't issued one veto. Instead, he is using his signing statements to effectively nullify congressional legislation as it relates to the executive branch of the government. In his own mind, King George can use the statements as directives to the executive branch departments and agencies concerning how to implement the relevant law.
The truth is, Bush has been using the statements to bolster presidential powers in a devious but effective manner. His scheme had gone mostly unnoticed or ignored though reported in the weekly compilation of Presidential documents. The practice would still be unrecognized were it not for the media picking up on Bush's signing statement attempting to nullify John McCain's amendment regarding torture.
What is most remarkable is that Bush feels himself above the law, capable of ignoring what he disagrees with by issuing a signing statement, which, in his purview, protects him. For example, Senator McCain's amendment specifically forbids torture, but the president says the military may use torture anyway effectively rendering the bill totally unenforceable.
ON Dec. 30 A law was enacted stating interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Bush's signing statement said, the president, as commander-in-chief can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
On March 9, Law was enacted declaring the Justice department MUST give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the Patriot act to search homes and secretly seize papers. Bush signed the legislation but afterward,on his signing statement wrote, the president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he (Bush) decides it could impair national security of executive branch operations.
On Dec. 30, Congress said, When requested, scientific information "prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted (to congress) uncensored and without delay." Bush's statement: the president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he (Bush) decides its disclosures could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
With examples like those, is it any wonder the Congress has gotten outraged over the latest in Bush's gall? Things have gotten so very bad, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Arlen Specter (R-Pa), a leading and openly vocal opponent of the president's signing statements, promised a bill allowing Congress to sue Bush in federal court by the end of the week.
"We will submit legislation to the United States which will authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with a view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Specter declared on the floor of the Senate. Senator Specter's comment magnifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive powers on policy matters. Though numerous applications of signings rankle, the most irritating to Specter are the two that challenge provisions of the Patriot Act renewal and the legislation banning torture use on detainees.
The frequency of King George's use of signing statements had become very disturbing. Enactments by the Congress are presumed to be constitutional as the Department of Justice has so often stated. In a government brief extracted from the U.S. v Morrison, the statement "It is well established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality," says it all. That makes Bush's use of statements come into direct confrontation with the Justice Department.
It is unbelievable that Bush thinks himself above the law and can ignore what he decides is unconstitutional and then think his signing statement will protect him when called on the action. There is a more serious long-term danger to be considered here that is being ignored by the administration, and that is defiance of Congressional lawmaking. Eventually even a worm will turn and attack its tormentor. Bush is beginning to see what kind of consequences can arise from pushing lawmakers too hard.
Bush should read his recent history and pay strict attention to the Nixon era. Tricky Dick insisted on pushing the powers of the presidency to the brink. Sometimes he would attempt to go further, and that resulted in the Watergate fiasco and his downfall. Unfortunately, Nixon began his second term with even more grandiose plans than he displayed during his first four years, a stance that worried Congress. They got their opportunity to act and, well history tells the rest of the story.
Gall! It takes a vast amount to behave as George Bush has but until now he has managed to escape the consequences. Congress, however, regardless of party, unifies when their authority is challenged or their elective future is placed in jeopardy. That is the case now, and King George, gall and all, is facing a sudden and shattering come-uppance.
Print
Email
