Texian Weblog: How Bush is Destroying the Republic

President Bush has recently re-started his practice of including signing statements with legislation. These signing statements are used by the president to inform Congress that he has no intention of enforcing certain provisions of the bill he has just signed because he believes those provisions are unconstitutional. This issue first came to light a few years ago, and since the Democrats have won control of Congress, Bush has relented. But recently he has re-started his aggressive use of these signing statements. Usually these statements are used to sidestep a provision in a bill that the president feels is an unconstitutional encroachment of Congress on the president’s executive power.

However, the signing statements themselves are unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the president with three options regarding legislation: he may sign it, veto it, or allow it to be come law without his signature (see Article I, sec. 7). The Constitution is very clear about what the president should do if he objects to a bill, “he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.” Sorry Mr. Bush, but it says nothing about including a statement saying you do not intend to execute certain provisions of the law. If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, then veto it and let Congress know that you think it is unconstitutional. That’s the way our Republic works.

We are a nation of laws. Our liberties mean nothing without the law, and if those who are charged with enforcing the law have themselves no regard for the law, then the law means nothing and our liberties mean nothing.

Look, the Bill of Rights is not just the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It is the entire Constitution (see Federalist 84). Every provision of the Constitution is intended to limit the power of government, to ensure that only good laws are enacted, to prevent one person or one group in the government from gaining too much power. This is why we have this cumbersome process of law making. This is why annoying little things like the separation of powers are important.

Bush’s practice of including signing statements, however, throws a monkey wrench in the whole process. He is using them to concentrate power in the executive branch (as if enough power hasn’t been concentrated there already). He is ignoring the separation of powers and declaring himself the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.

This could be forgiven as an overzealous mistake, if Bush were correct in his judgements. But, he is not. The Boston Globe reports:

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Globe gives Bush’s objections:

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

Now, how is Congress’ attempt to regulate how money is spent out of the federal treasury an unconstitutional imposition on the president’s authority? The power of the purse is held by Congress, according to the Constitution anyway. Article I, sec. 8 (regular readers should be familiar with this part of the Constitution by now) says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” (emphasis is mine, though I imagine the Framers would agree). Too vague? The Constitution also says Congress has the power, “To raise and support Armies,” and, “To provide and maintain a Navy.” The president is indeed the commander in chief of the armed forces, but the Congress decides how to fund them. The provision that Bush declares unconstitutional is actually a perfectly legitimate exercise of Congress’ power under the Constitution.

So, let me get this straight. The president is using an unconstitutional practice to declare constitutional laws unconstitutional. Is your head spinning, too?

Actually, my head is not spinning, but my face is flush with anger. This is the Conservative president we are supposed to love and defend, whom history will judge as one of the greatest presidents in American history? What, I humbly ask, is conservative about how this man has governed? He has given us out of control spending, increased entitlements, incompetent management of the war, warrantless wiretapping, “comprehensive” immigration reform (so comprehensive that it forgot to secure the border), torture, secret prisons, devaluation of our currency, and now this, a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to concentrate power in the executive branch. This is Conservatism?

I think when I go to worship this Sunday, along with my many other sins, I will confess and ask forgiveness for my two votes for Bush (actually, four votes including the primaries).

Now, to what can we look forward in the future. According to the Globe, only one of the four remaining (viable) candidates has sworn off signing statements. Romney? No. Hillary? Obama? No, and no. Only John McCain has said he will not continue the practice. All the others, Obama included, have said they would continue issuing signing statements. So much for “change we can believe in.” Of course, I never could take seriously a candidate whose campaign slogan is grammatically incorrect.

But, back to this point. Only John McCain has said he will not use signing statements. Yet, according to Rush Limbaugh and the other high priests of Conservatism, McCain is not a conservative. So, Bush’s actions are conservative? If Bush is the measure of what it means to be a conservative, and McCain does not meet that standard, then I say good. In fact, why don’t you bring me the most un-conservative bastard you can find. I’ll vote for him.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org