Signing Statements and George W. Bush

Back in May of this year I blogged about how Bush was using signing statements to challenge 750 laws. In short, when a law is passed that he doesn't like, he adds a signing statement to them clarifying how he will use the laws that were passed. In this way he is effectively removing those laws from being laws, usurping what little power we citizens have to change the laws.

See, you vote for a lawmaker that you like so he/she will vote only laws you like into existence. However, if those laws get the signing-statement-special from good old Dubya, then we stop living in a representative democracy. Essentially, it can be called legislation without representation.

According to a July 21, 2006 article at USNews.com the American Bar Association is finally coming out against this practice of signing statements. Here's a clip:

Although the president has not issued more statements in total than any other president, he has challenged more than 750 laws in more than 100 signing statements. And he has used them to, in effect, challenge parts of laws, and challenge them more aggressively, than any president before him. Bush's liberal use of those statements first attracted attention in December 2005, when he signed a torture ban—but then added a statement reserving the right not to enforce the ban, alongside his signature. Since then, Congress has held a hearing to investigate Bush's use of the statements, a bipartisan advocacy group has condemned their use, and Democratic Rep. Barney Frank has introduced a bill that would allow Congress to override content in them that contradicts signed legislation.

Now, U.S. News has learned, an American Bar Association task force is set to suggest even stronger action. In a report to be released Monday, the task force will recommend that Congress pass legislation providing for some sort of judicial review of the signing statements. Some task force members want to simply give Congress the right to sue over the signing statements; other task force members will not characterize what sort of judicial review might ultimately emerge.

So, this is just great. Rather than impeach the guy for breaking the law and generally betraying the public trust, the ABA is saying we should just make what he does a little less illegal by putting pretend oversight on it. You really think lawmakers are going to make the effort to sue Bush on 750 laws?

This is ridiculous. Laws have been broken and every American citizen deserves to have those crimes investigated.