We're Construed

Don't believe everything published by MSM. Boston Globe and NYT would have you believe that Bush has issued over 750 signing statements, all giving himself "imperial powers." Not all presidential signing statements are attempts to nullify law. Some praise, some voice reservations regarding specific items, some say thank you.

"Signing statements" according to Wiki and the Clinton Justice Department are statements:

… the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

Presidential signing statements are published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. This site has a search engine available to compare Clinton/Bush from 1993-2006 signing statements if you're so inclined to such tedium. Use of the word "construe" in the search box will return better results. Presidents construe a lot.

Presidential signing statements appear to construe most on executive power and foreign policy. Clinton could construe better than Bush, though no surprise there as the Bush team will never be as slick as William J.

John Dean has an article on the matter from January. I think Dean's opinion is nothing more than rhetoric to produce hyperventilation on the "left." Sometimes I'm still awed by the number of former expert wolves who pretend to be reasonable sheep, and they're so good at it. There is a Former Felons Club somewhere which Republicans draw their conservative "detractors" from.

DEAN: "But like steroids, signing statements ultimately lead to serious trouble."

To date, no signing statements by any president has led to "serious trouble" that I can find, and Dean doesn't give any instance or example to show where a statement has. Dean also uses phrases such as : "President Bush used a signing statement to attempt to nullify the recent, controversial McCain amendment regarding torture" …. "attempt"? So did Bush or did Bush not nullify the torture amendment? Or this : "Bush's signing statements tend to be brief and very broad, and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his reading of the law." Clinton statements were also broad, but better written, and did not "cite the authority" he relied on either.

Dean gives two examples of the effect of signing statements but states "suppose a new law" and then the interpretation of a hypothetical signing statement but I don't want supposition Dean – give me clear-cut current Bush statements, that differ in tone or legality from Reagan or Clinton or Bush 1. After 5+ Bush years signing surely you can point to one.

DEAN: "The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling." Dean, Dean, Dean every breath the Shrub takes is troubling. (The rightwing deity, Reagan, was as above the law as Bush apparently wants to be, but the right never takes Reagan's name in vain.)

Knowing Bush couldn't cobble together an intelligent sentence if his life depended on it, I would bet my new patio Bush wrote none of the statements, merely signed them. Tell me whose directing the composition of these "signing statements" as that would help me understand what is really going on behind the statements. Bush will be gone in a couple of years so these statements should benefit the next administration more than the current, if there's any benefit to be had as apparently the statements have meant little to nothing in a century or two.

But can't you just hear pResident Hillary claiming her hands are tied because Dubya wrote this or that signing statement and the matter will have to be referred to the courts and the courts will delay, delay, delay because there is no precedence, and congress will sit in session attempting to hammer out new legislation to rectify the situation, if they can squeeze the job in between fundraisers for their next election.

Dean compared Bush and the Nixon administration: "First, there are the leaks: People within the Executive branch become troubled by a president's overreaching. When Nixon adopted extreme measures, people within the administration began leaking. The same is now happening to Bush, for there was the leak about the use of torture. And, more recently, there was the leak as to the use of warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans." As if Hoover in a red dress was not surveilling Americans illegally?

I would bet my new apple orchard Clinton's grin is one of relief that he was smeared with a blue dress rather than issues of "overreaching," although the "right" ranted for years Bill was maneuvering law to set up the New World Order with EOs (executive orders). Maybe they were right, in which case he paved the way for BushCo.

Hmmm. Too bad there are not more insider leakers leaking info on 9/11, anthrax, stolen elections, bin Laden. Maybe Porter Goss will revisit some of that.

Oops, forgot. Porter the Spymaster was sent in to tidy up any evidence Tenet might have overlooked. Of course, since congress on steroids gave us another intel agency and DNI Negroponte - America is much safer, no matter how many imperial statements the recklessly audacious Bush signs, right Bubba?