« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Report: Bush "Signing Statements" May Have Affected Implementation of Laws
President Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office -- in what are called "signing statements." But what has been unclear ever since The Boston Globe's landmark story on the statements (which won Charlie Savage a Pulitzer) is just what effect these obscure little statements, published in the federal register, have.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) wanted to know just that, so they asked for an analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, of last year's appropriations bills. The report, released today, is sure to lead to further investigation.
The agency examined a sample of appropriations bills from last year, focusing on 19 provisions that were affected by a presidential signing statement added to a bill -- in each case, Bush invoked the "unitary executive" theory or some other justification for disputing the bill. The result: of the 19 provisions, six were not executed as authorized by Congress.
Now, there's a major asterisk to these findings in the report and that's this: "Although we found the agencies did not execute the provisions as enacted, we cannot conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements."
In other words, it's not clear that the agencies disobeyed the law because the president said they could disobey it. And it's also worth adding that of the six examples cited in the report, none of them have to do with the controversial assertions of presidential power dealing with issues of torture, domestic surveillance, etc.
But the report does strengthen the argument, originally made in Savage's piece, that bureaucrats might take the president's word over Congress' when implementing laws. And in issues as vital as the conduct of special operations, treatment of detainees, and others, that's a worrisome thought.
Both Conyers and Byrd, reacting to the report, are calling for more digging.
“This study calls for an extensive review of these practices, something the Administration has so far refused to do," says Conyers.
Sen. Byrd, saying that the "Administration cannot be in the business of cherry picking the laws it likes and the laws it doesn’t," said that the GAO report "underscores the fact that the Bush White House is constantly grabbing for more power, seeking to drive the people’s branch of government to the sidelines.... We must continue to demand accountability and openness from this White House to counter this power grab."
Comments (52)
Steve5117 wrote on June 18, 2007 1:23 PM:Is it possible to charge Bush and his minions with treason in the time of war?
Execution by firing squad when found guilty. Any volunteers to be part of the squad?
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 1:35 PM:Jesus, Mary and Joseph! as my dear mother would say when utterly exasperated.
What will it take to get these muthers OUT!!!!
Sisyphus
dm wrote on June 18, 2007 1:40 PM:Art II S 3: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
Powkat wrote on June 18, 2007 1:40 PM:Steve5117 - You'd have to hold a lottery there would be so many volunteers.
mspicata wrote on June 18, 2007 1:57 PM:As I posted <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/7/111855/4825" at Daily Kos a couple weeks ago, Bush has abandoned the signing statement entirely. Guess they weren't all that important to him after all...
Code=silver, as in "Hi Ho!"
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 2:00 PM:This is BS: "Now, there's a major asterisk to these findings in the report and that's this: "Although we found the agencies did not execute the provisions as enacted, we cannot conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements." In other words, it's not clear that the agencies disobeyed the law because the president said they could disobey it."
This President and his lackeys have asserted the unitary theory; and _fired_ US Attys who did not follow his lead. It is absurd to suggeset "it's not clear" they didn't follow the law because of teh President. Duh: Of course they did; if they ignored the President -- despite the law that said otherwise -- they would have met the same fate as the US Attys: _Mandatory firing/resignation_.
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 2:11 PM:in the pic, Bush is holding up one finger too many.....
Bearpaw wrote on June 18, 2007 2:15 PM:The Government Accountability Office has always seemed underappreciated to me. My impression is that they've always been hard-core fact-based, and don't seem to care whose fantasy they shoot down.
Rionn Fears Malechem wrote on June 18, 2007 2:24 PM:(Bearpaw, be quiet or you'll get them all fired)
Northern Observer wrote on June 18, 2007 2:24 PM:The next President of the United States should publically burn Bushes signing statements on the front lawn of the white house. If it takes a law from Congress to make it happen then get her done. This constitutional frankenstein must not survive Bush.
dalloway wrote on June 18, 2007 2:25 PM:Come on. Is anybody really surprised? What did we think was the purpose of the signing statements if not for Bush to cherry-pick the laws his administration would obey? Sheesh, people. Wake up. These people are criminals.
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 2:26 PM:"We are a nation of laws, not of men." John Adams, 1780
"They can try to have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to determine - make the determination who serves in my government." George W. Bush, 2007
And thus ends the American experiment with democracy, with a whimper not a bang.
gcs wrote on June 18, 2007 2:26 PM:"We are a nation of laws, not of men." John Adams, 1780
"They can try to have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to determine - make the determination who serves in my government." George W. Bush, 2007
And thus ends the American experiment with democracy, with a whimper not a bang.
thersitz wrote on June 18, 2007 2:29 PM:Let's face it -- we no longer have a functioning government as we have known it. We have a fascist regime in place ignoring the rule of law, thumbing their noses at Congress and the people -- and the current Democratic Congress is too feckless to do a thing about it.
If a Democrat is elected President this upcoming term -- watch the Republicans slobber all over themelves to undo what this administration has done. This point is starting to be written about, and though I can't recall the specific stories I've seen, it is in my estimation dead on. Especially if Hillary takes office.
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 2:29 PM:http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx
ctrenta wrote on June 18, 2007 2:31 PM:So when is Josh Micah Marshall and other like-minded individuals FINALLY going to come around for investigations into impeachment?
Well..... we're waiting!
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 2:44 PM:yeah and Bush wont be left out or put out about it, he dont care about nobody, he's gonna go back to the skull-n-bones with geronimo's head just like his gand pappy and aint no one gonna do a ding dang thang about it ... til someone starts to do something about it....
these people will continue to desecrate and destroy everything we've tried to do and everyone we've tried to be.
they expect us to hand them our federal dollars as though they had worked for it.
they expect us to be docile and appreciative in the face of their blatent rape on our reputation and our society
what a murdering bunch of self serving gangsters
Ha ha I like Thune's assertion that alot of Republican's will be "allowed' to be contrary if Iraq doesnt progress and 'turn a corner' and then default to 'We need more time than just up to September'. They have no intention of stopping their gravy train until someone stops it for them and they can blame them (perhaps by arranging with their foreign buddies for another "domestic terrorist act" that they can appoit themselves to to "remedy", by paying their investment firms another few ten's of trillions.
like mel Brooks Pointedly mused, "It's good being king".
Tom Simon wrote on June 18, 2007 2:59 PM:I would like to call my Senator Grassley about this issue. But want to be succient in describing exactly what is the law that is being broken - can someone help frame this is terms that are indisputable? I see no other solution than to get Senators to committ to a censure vote or to challange the signing statement as unconstitutional.
DRock wrote on June 18, 2007 3:02 PM:couldn't find the report on the gao site - anyone have a link?
Jason wrote on June 18, 2007 3:02 PM:Facinating that those who cried loudest during the Clinton (Camalot days in comparison) about Clinton's abolition of the 'rule of law' are the very same ones who are showing themselves to be above the law? "Yes," said Yoda. "Perplexing time we live in it is!"
mikebee wrote on June 18, 2007 3:03 PM:don't expect too much from the democrats if they win the WH in 2008. the taste of power that the executive now has will blindly corrupt whoever gets in and things will just stay the same. the dark side rules.
rip :Constitution, rule of law, we the people.
long live: unitary king, rule of lies, we the corporation.
DCB wrote on June 18, 2007 3:14 PM:Tell me again why it is that impeachment is off the table?
Hoppy wrote on June 18, 2007 3:23 PM:Let all the poisons in the muck hatch out.--Claudius
DCB, Impeachment is off the table because the Democratc majority in the Senate is nowhere near big enough for a conviction. Until the public demands an impeachment, and the Repubs are afraid the will lose their seats in the next election if they don't vote to convict, there will be no impeachment. That can't happen before the 2008 election.
Vince wrote on June 18, 2007 3:26 PM:For political appointees and Federal Senior Executive Service career employees:
Rule 1: the boss is always right.
Rule 2: when the boss is wrong - see rule 1.
For all career civil servants:
See rules 1 and 2.
QED
Steve5117 wrote on June 18, 2007 3:28 PM:anon @ 2:29 thanks for the link. Here's what I just sent!
Dear Chairman Conyers;
I would like to suggest that you hold public hearings in a large public venue.
Just imagine the exposure your hearings would get. I'm sure any facility will have all the necessary media hook-ups in place.
I beleive there will be an additional benifit to you, the committee and any witnesses with the presence of between 10-20 thousand members of the public. That benifit, of course, will be the instant feedback from your employers, the American people.
Then again it may not be such a good idea; I sure there will be one or two of We the People who would also want justice served.
Perhaps if it was only available on pay-per-view the Republican members could be persuaded to go along.
thomas wrote on June 18, 2007 3:31 PM:Can someone please tell us where the constitutional provisions for 'signing statements' lies?
What is it about 'high crimes and misdemonors' that congress doesn't understand?
I especially like king george's reference to 'his' government.
Englischlehrer wrote on June 18, 2007 3:32 PM:Man, it's hard to put all of this in perspective. I just read Hersh's latest article, incredible how plainly it states the deterioration of the rule of law and chain of command...
Becca wrote on June 18, 2007 3:53 PM:I have to agree with ctrenta . It's long past time for righteous indignation . It's mobilization and action that are needed . I miss Abbie Hoffman .
buckheaddad wrote on June 18, 2007 3:53 PM:Let's just ASSUME that there will be a change of executive after the 2008 Elections:
Can an incoming administration "reach back" to the preceeding administraiton with force??????????
In other words . . . R Bush and Cheney and Company completely beyond reach?
Becca wrote on June 18, 2007 3:54 PM:I have to agree with ctrenta . It's long past time for righteous indignation . It's mobilization and action that are needed . I miss Abbie Hoffman .
Rick B wrote on June 18, 2007 3:56 PM:Let's see.
I'm a bureaucrat. My paycheck and future assignments and employment are up to the President. Congress passes a bill that funds something the President wants, but puts limiations on him that he doesn't want. So he signs a Signing Statement stating that in my work, I don't have to consider the limitations the Congress included on the Bill.
Gee, and someone actually thinks that I will not do what is written in the Signing Statement? If I were going to do what Congress directed, I would resign and go public. If I don't resign and go public, guess what set of instructions I follow?
SSSittig wrote on June 18, 2007 3:57 PM:So what happens to the power being amassed by proponents of the 'unitary executive' if a democrat takes office in '09?
Will the Bush/Rovians simply say, Fine, a strong presidency is no problem?
What's their gameplan after they lose the Whitehouse???
Richard L. Adlof wrote on June 18, 2007 4:02 PM:You all are missing the point:
Hillary is cold.
Obama is a rockstar.
Edwards gotta haircut or two.
Biden is a dandy.
Gravel is unhinged.
Ku . . . Sigh.
Foggylady wrote on June 18, 2007 4:28 PM:re: Hoppy
*****mpeachment is off the table because the Democratc majority in the Senate is nowhere near big enough for a conviction. Until the public demands an impeachment, and the Repubs are afraid the will lose their seats in the next election if they don't vote to convict, there will be no impeachment****
I reply ( again)
http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx....
for starters..
.I've been sending emails almost daily to Pelosi and Senate Jud. Comm.
any suggestions for other targets..???
Kinda nice to hear from others who are also sending...
have keyboard, will nag...
joshua wrote on June 18, 2007 4:38 PM:I want these clowns out ASAP. I have wanted them out unequivocally since news of warrantless surveillance hit.
But if the Republicans in Congress won't go for the Gonzalez no-confidence vote they will NOT vote for conviction. And if they don't vote for conviction then it is a partisan show. A worthy one, yes (unlike last time), but one in which the Democrats are saying A and Republicans are saying B.
And if the Democrats go through with that knowing it has no chance of success... then what's the point? It won't change how the WH acts. It won't change their worldview.
Until it becomes absolutely bipartisan that Bush must go he will not. And Bush knows that and he still wields power in the GOP no matter what they say on Hardball. Look at the Gonzalez no-confidence vote for proof.
security code: right, as in they are the problem.
Patrick Henry wrote on June 18, 2007 4:45 PM:I'm so tired of the daily outrage. It feels like we're truly battling a crime syndicate. We keep hearing that nothing can be done because of the "Senate Bottleneck," or until the public turns around. Huh? News flash; the public is way on our side. It's the Republican crime syndicate, which includes the corporate press.
We are dealing with a group of people who have always and will always put party above country. It will never be about doing the right thing, it will always be about money, power and loyalty. Tony Soprano would be proud.
tekel wrote on June 18, 2007 5:15 PM:foggylady- send them real letters. As the Bushies have demonstrated, emails are easy to delete...
If Gonzo wasn't such a wussy, he'd take it on the "chin" like a man, and Pat Leahy would knock him the fu*k out!
tekel wrote on June 18, 2007 5:20 PM:Oh PS I like the sound of this paragraph so it's how I'm signing all my mail to congresspeople:
"When the people charged with upholding the laws aren’t doing their jobs, they must be replaced. When the President fails to faithfully execute the laws, he not only violates his oath of office, he puts every citizen of our country and our democracy itself in imminent danger. Congress must begin impeachment hearings now."
Feel free to borrow, copy, or make it your own.
V for Vendetta wrote on June 18, 2007 5:24 PM:If a fascist takeover happens and no one seems to notice did it really occur? Thanks for the "oversight" Dems.
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 5:33 PM:I miss Abbie Hoffman .
TheraP wrote on June 18, 2007 5:57 PM:Posted by: Becca
Date: June 18, 2007 03:53 PM
Don't we all Becca. Don't we all. The lack of outrage- that is what is so damn depressing. What the fuck has happened?! Everyone has just accepted that our government is here to fuck us over and nothing can be done about it. The Dems were given a golden opportunity to take back the White House and pick up seats in 08. Now they're less popular than Bush. Caving in on Iraq was a huge mistake. I've lost all hope and I don't think I'm the only one. Just give us some truth!
After the outrage, numbness. Many have been outraged. But when nothing happens, the embers slowly turn to numbness.
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 7:23 PM:After the outrage, numbness. Many have been outraged. But when nothing happens, the embers slowly turn to numbness.
anne wrote on June 18, 2007 8:39 PM:Posted by: TheraP
Date: June 18, 2007 05:57 PM
Well said.
the most incredible thing about the signing statements is that these were done when he had total control over the congress. So instead of telling his toadies that he didn't like the laws he wrote signing statements. Now he just vetoes. Man I am so sick of these bastards. I don't know if we can recover from this disaster.
ctrenta wrote on June 18, 2007 8:53 PM:It's time we ALL start focusing on investigations into impeachment. Why are a majority of us ambivalent to discuss it? We're all off on our own little tangents? Our own little worlds? No wonder Molly Ivins once said, "Trying to organize liberals is like trying to herd cats."
People talk about how we don't have enough votes to remove Bush from office. Well, if memory serves me, they said the same thing when impeachment hearings began in '73. We all know the rest. They're saying the same excuses today as well. Just initiate the hearings and let the evidence come out. Then we'l know if it's worth it or not.
It took 8 months to investigate Nixon. It took 4 to investigate Clinton. WIth Bush & Cheney, do you really think it's going to be as long? I don't think so. Look at all the evidence the media keeps uncovering.
It's time the Dems stop thinking about winning elections and start focusing on what's right and what's moral. What means more to us: gaining control of the House and Senate or preserving and protecting the Constitution from further abuse of power? Don't you think if we don't impeach, we're sending a bad message to future leaders and that they can get away with misusing power? Elections won't stop the hemorraging (sp.) of our country. Investigations into impeachment will. Impeachment isn't un-American.
WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
The Oracle wrote on June 18, 2007 9:02 PM:There is plenty of evidence of criminal activity by everyone in the Bush administration, but especially by Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzales.
It is time all of them were impeached, led away in chains and thrown into some dungeon somewhere and the key thrown away.
The corruption and outright evil in the Bush administration is quite apparent to everyone by now.
Enough is enough. Congress...DO YOUR DUTY!!!
molly wrote on June 18, 2007 11:11 PM:Shouldn't take 4 months to investigate and impeach Bush. He brags about breaking the law...he is too dumb to be believed. Wonder if the real power brokers...the ones who choose our prez. wonder if they didn't make a mistake with George Bush.
Duckman GR wrote on June 19, 2007 2:00 AM:Another investigation? To what end? Waving subpoenas around like so much candy?
Investigations are all well and good, but they take time we don't have. Yes, please investigate, but we need actions as well.
Nancy Irving wrote on June 19, 2007 4:21 AM:Doesn't Bush's oath of office say that he swears to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," or somesuch?
Is violation of his oath of office not enough to count as a "high crime or misdemeanor"?
Treason Time wrote on June 19, 2007 7:55 AM:TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
I think that sums up this administration pretty well.
Bugboy wrote on June 19, 2007 8:49 AM:The huge case of buyer's remorse is astounding in this country.
You would be hard pressed to walk down the street and find someone willing to admit they voted for Bush.
Then someone is bound to pop up and say that Bush stole the election, when it was a travesty it should ever have been close enough to have been stealable in the first place.
It's a little late to be talking about impeachment when the fruitcake should never have been in the Whitehouse in the first place.
Some of us new that back in '99. Where were the rest of you?
Security code is "much" as in much too late.
Bugboy wrote on June 19, 2007 8:57 AM:The best thing we can hope for is to put these guys behind bars, and so far it looks like they are doing a pretty good job of putting themselves in line for it.
Forget impeachment, the statute of limitations does not end with the fruitcake's expiration date.
Yes, we needed to set the Executive Branch straight, but it's too late to do it now. That has nothing to do with Bush, but what the next president does with the precedent set by Bush.
Scott L wrote on June 19, 2007 9:39 AM:Welcome to the American Banana Republic. We have become what we paid for in South America for so many years.