An abuse of power deepens

By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published June 25, 2007

One of the more troubling ways President Bush has abused the power of his office is through his profligate use of bill-signing statements. Rather than veto a bill he doesn't like, which is the president's sole option in rejecting any part of a bill passed by Congress, Bush has instead written objections to particular provisions even as he signs the bill into law. He's not the first president to issue signing statements but he's the most prolific, objecting to more than 700 select provisions of law so far.

In these statements, Bush claims the right not to enforce a law that he believes violates his constitutional powers. But if he thought the law impinged on his authority, then he should have vetoed it. He can't kill it in parts. The president has no constitutional authority to pick and choose what provisions of law he will execute.

The outstanding question has been whether the statements have had any practical effect. Are executive branch agencies seeming to follow the president's directives rather than congressional intent?

Yes, says a new report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Some of the provisions objected to by the president are being ignored by federal agencies charged with administering them, according to the GAO, although it didn't impute motive or connect the signing statements with the agencies' actions.

If this is going on, and is as widespread as the GAO's initial inquiry suggests, then it is another example of the Bush administration violating the separation of powers. The law and congressional will are being ignored like unwanted advice by a nosy uncle.

The GAO's findings indicate that the administration had not followed the law in 30 percent of the cases investigated. The watchdog agency examined 19 cases and found that in six, the administration had not complied with the strictures of the law.

These include: the Defense Department failing to provide separate budget justifications for Iraq war funding in its 2007 budget request; the Federal Emergency Management Agency failing to submit a housing plan; and the failure of the Customs Service and Border Patrol to frequently relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson area.

This initial GAO inquiry justifies a larger inquiry. This president has attempted to marginalize Congress at every turn, from initially cutting it out of a decision to create military tribunals to trying to keep it from confirming replacement U.S. attorneys. The country needs to know if the president's disregard for Congress is translated into a disregard for the law.

[Last modified June 24, 2007, 20:15:09]