I will not obey your laws

Last week, President Bush signed into law the 2008 Defense Bill. Section 1222 of this bill restricts any funding for any permanent military bases in Iraq. It also prohibits the United States from exercising control over the oil resources of Iraq. This is the full text of that section:

SEC. 1222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES RELATING TO IRAQ.

No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.

After signing the bill into law, the President then issued a “signing statement.” This statement indicated that the President would not abide by this section. Here is what President Bush wrote (emphases mine):

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, 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. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 28, 2008.

The legalese may be difficult to read, but in essence the President indicated that he would not abide by that provision to the extent it interfered with his own personal interpretation of his own power.

Congress passes the laws; the President, once signing them, is obliged to execute them. The President is not allowed to pick and choose what sections to follow (if the President doesn’t like the bill, he can veto it). Yet this is what President Bush has done — and with a section of the law which carries grave implications for the occupation in Iraq.

Through these signing statements, President Bush has expanded the powers of the Presidency in a manner virtually unprecedented in the American political and legal framework. He has basically stated that he gets to pick and choose which laws to follow; that he is not beholden to Congress on issues of primary importance; and that he can interpret the extent of his own power. This destroys the entire notions of “checks-and-balances,” the foundation of the American Constitution.

The Boston Globe carries some more commentary (emphases mine):

Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said.

“What this shows is that they’re continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president’s unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that’s a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition,” said Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s.

In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not

The last point is especially troubling. The powers that Bush has taken for the presidency will not be returned by the next President. Power does not forsake power, but always seeks more. A President Clinton, a President Romney, or a President Obama would retain this authority (a President Paul, however, would not, and it is shameful that the Globe would not indicate that in an otherwise elucidating article).

President Bush has taken the Presidency to the very edges of democratic accountability. And it may in fact be his successor, and not Bush himself, who removes the last few legal boundaries to absolute power.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am and is filed under Executive Power, Government Accountability. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.