The legacy of the Shrub

Remove all ads!

There is a difference between those users - first how often they used the instrument and then what they said using it. Pre-Bush a signing statement stated that the signing president refuses to execute specific parts of a given bill because he considers them unconstitutional. So far so good.

Bush alone signed more of those statements than all presidents since Monroe put together. But indeed, in themselves these statements are indeed neither new nor spectacular. Since at least the Reagan era, scholars, jurists, and others have debated whether presidential signing statements should be considered as legislative history for purposes of interpreting federal statutes.

Bush's signing statements, unlike those of previous presidents, always refer to unspecified and unlimited powers of the 'unitary executive branch'. Bush stands out as the only one whose signing statements say that he maintains the right to ignore those laws he signed if he feels so, because he claims they infringe on his unwritten and unlimited (extra-constitutional) commander in chief powers (if so, why doesn't he veto them and enforce a resolution?). Signing statements become volatile constitutional dynamite when combined with the doctrine of the 'unitary executive branch'.

Listen to an mp3 where John Yoo elaborates on the sordid details of the extent of these powers. Having been one of the most vocal and publicly exposed proponents of unitary executive doctrine in the Bush administration (which very likely influenced his decision 'to seek new opportunities in the private sector'), he can be considered an authority.

Referring to the unitary executive branch doctrine, Bush goes so far as to claim that he, as commander in chief, preserves himself the right the ignore laws or perhaps do the opposite of what a law sais, based on whether he deems it appropriate. That is, he alone decides which laws to execute and which not - a peculiar power for an executive branch supposed to be subordinate to the rule of law. For all practical purposes, in doing so he declares himself king, for the unspecified duration of the war on terror, or some other noun that might succeed it.

That's what's new and that is unprecedented, or to be less understating, revolutionary. I thought you understood that.

***​

PS: What I don't comprehend, well beyond the point of Bush's blatant abuse of the them, is how a tool as the signing statement is even permissible as anything else but temporary. The rule of law dictates among other things clarity - the citizens who are subject to the law have to be informed about what laws are binding on them, what laws are executed. Ambiguous signing statements referring to some arcane doctrine, that are then published in the 'Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents' do not meet that standard.

This lack of clarity and concerns for the constitutionality of the law in question that the president claims infringe his inherent and unwritten powers indicate a conflict between legislative and executive - which ought to be settled as soon as possible. One thinks of going to the supreme court. But nothing of that.

Signing statements certainly lack transparency, which I think, as far as Bush's use is concerned, is just the point. Ambiguity, he-said-she-said, 'the jury is still out on that', lack of transparency and legislative oversight are just fine for their purposes. The reason why Bush doesn't veto these laws is probably that a veto would enforce a resolution of the conflict between traditional view vs. the maximalist view of the 'unitary executive branch' doctrine. I suspect that as long as there is only one Justice Scalia on the court, the unitary executive branch doctrine wouldn't survive SCOTUS' verdict.

All this suggests to me a dysfunctional legislative process in the US. I also cannot comprehend Congresses inertia in face of this obvious and blatant usurpation of legislative powers by president Bush - i's like watching a glacier melt.

 

And this guy actually got elected TWICE: The things people believe....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24660754/

 

Actually, most of the military was asking that as well. The Tomahawk cruise missile is very ineffective against "soft targets." An F/A-18 air strike would have been much more effective.

I was on an Admiral's staff in the Med. We were preparing to go through the Suez Canal to provide a second carrier battle group for the attack. Suddenly, we were told to turn around -- the powers that be decided to go against their military advisors and use Tomahawks instead of a coordinated air assault (which would have obliterated the entire camp). As I said, the Tomahawks were ineffective.

In retrospect, the failed attack with the Tomahawks gave Bin Laden added confidence and second lease on life. It is possible the Tomahawk attack resulted in 9/11.

I've said this many times. Everyone was raving that Rove was gone -- things would be so much better. Right. Bush is running the show. Bush is deciding policy. Changing the faces of the rogues gallery around him makes very little difference.

Your comment about the executive branch is being messed up by Bush (purging the professionals) may be correct, but it was also done with just as great efficiency with Clinton. In fact, Clinton seemed to make it his priority to especially "cleanse" the Department of Defense.

 

My understanding is that it was not Bill's idea to use the Tomahawks, but the CIA's. But I could be wrong because that was like 10 years ago. But I do remember that the same Republican was NOT talking military strategy, but political, saying that the attack itself was "wag the dog." That just as likely gave Bin Laden a "new lease on life," and that could have resulted in 9/11. Nice attempt at deflection though....

 

chandos last time i checked the CIA doesn't determine what weapon the military fires, so no it wasn't deflection on t2bruno's part but your own. sorry but a hundred years from now & clinton will be in the bottom 10 easy.

 

Maybe you need to check again....It turned out that BL was not in the camp that was attacked, thusly the TYPE of weapon used would not have mattered...nice try though....

 

still doesn't change the simple matter that the cia doesn't tell the military what weapon system to use.

 

Well, you're right in that Chandos was wrong about the CIA telling the military what weapon to use (of course, Chandos might have meant that the CIA told Clinton, and Clinton took their advice). However, it isn't relevant. If OBL wasn't in the camp, then he couldn't have been taken out no matter what form of attack was used (er, short of nuking the entire ME, at any rate).

Unless the argument is that the TLAM attack both annoyed OBL and convinced him America am suxxor at asymmetrical warfare (although I'd think Vietnam would've established the latter point on its own)?

 

Marty, you're going psychic on us again, aren't you ? Sorry, but unless someone does a 4-ed-FR style retcon on US history books, I doubt Clinton would be that low. There are quite a few things he did not screw up, and I dare say he beats the current occupant of the White House in that regard.

Then again, it would not be the first time the two of us disagree, would it?

 

psychic, psychotic. . . . . . . . the doctor keeps mentioning one of these, hmmm

 

What I remember reading at the time (like I mentioned, it has been 10 years ago) is that Clinton ordred the CIA to find BL and kill him. That's about it regarding that point. Where the deflection comes in, is that a few partisan Republicans complained that Bill Clinton was using BL to draw attention away from the ML scandal, and in the process marginalizing the threat that BL would become for the next prez. One of them was John Mac, btw.

 

Yet another reason to like McCain....

I didn't think Clinton was trying to draw attention away from his own personal scandal (it would have needed to be an invasion). I just think he was listening to the wrong advisors. Clinton was like most presidents, he listened to those he thought he could trust (i.e., his own political appointees). I believe Kennedy was the last president who actually assigned cabinet members to play 'devil's advocate' during meetings -- without fear of repercussion.

 

Not really. Since Clinton's obsession with UBL was vindicated after 911, it was obviously not a ploy to distract Americans from his little sex scandal. In other words, it was those members of the republican party (and McCain was sadly among them) and the so-called liberal media that were accusing Clinton of trying to use UBL to distract people that actually marginalized his very real threat. Obviously, this would have been less likely* to happen had Clinton not gotten that blow job, so I can understand adding this to the list of reasons to dislike Clinton, but this is hardly a reason to like McCain more.

* Given the fact that the republican legislature spent hundreds of millions pursuing spurious "scandal" after spurious "scandal", there's no way we can say for sure that Clinton wouldn't still have been accused of using his Bin Laden obsession as a distraction from whatever non-scandal they were pulling out of their collective ass and trying to pin on him that particular week.

 

Drew, the question isn't if Clinton's acitons were justified, or justifiable, but what his intentions behind them were. If he genuinely considered BL a threat that needed to be dealt with post haste, the he may have just taken an odd time to act on it (and terrorism can generate some very odd timing, btw). If he didn't really consider BL a significant threat to the safety of the US, then his actions were just an attempted smokescreen (and a bad one at that).

 

A significant threat? Perhaps you've forgotten the US embassy bombings in Africa, the attacks in Somalia and the USS Cole bombing. NOG, Im sure you are aware that there were some Republicans who understood the attacks and applauded them, such as Newt Gingrich...Not all Republicans are hacks....

 

Well, Clinton was long blamed for not doing MORE about OBL, at least until the whole bin Laden issue started to fade away with the war in Iraq. As for how significant a threat he considered him, that's hard to guess if you're not Bill Clinton or a close friend of his - but I'd say that after the embassy bombing he considered him fairly important.

 

Ironically, these critics are often very same people who originally accused him of doing too much, being obsessed with Bin Laden...

 

Most of the critics of Clinton's actions don't necessarily accuse him of doing too much, but ineffectual at what he did (anything ineffectual is a waste and could be considered "too much"). I would not have called Clinton obsessed with Bin Laden. Prior to 9/11 terrorism was a crime in the US -- not an act of war. There were limitations to what the president could do (until congress gave such sweeping powers to DHS). However, Clinton did not make very good choices when going after Bin Laden.

 

Which choices of his were bad, pray tell? As has been pointed out, his attempt at taking Bin Laden's head failed not because of the weapon he used, but because Bin Laden wasn't there. Clinton constantly requested and was constantly denied more funding for anti-terror programs. He constantly sought more resources and was constantly denied. The (republican controlled) House and Senate refused to believe that Clinton was pursuing a real threat and refused to believe that more funding was necessary. You can't blame Clinton for working with what he had.

 

He was the President of the United States -- he had everything at his disposal.