President undercuts checks, balances

Hidden behind the lofty language of President Bush's most recent signing statement is something that should concern us all: an attempt to undermine America's system of checks and balances.

Presidents have the choice of either signing a bill into law or vetoing it. That's it. But Bush has determined that what was good enough for the 42 presidents before him is too limiting for his oversized sense of presidential authority. So in hundreds of cases Bush has signed bills into law and appended caveats to them, explaining what portions he will ignore.

The signing statement accompanying the defense authorization bill Bush signed last month says he reserves the right to refuse to implement four sections because they "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations." These sections include:

- The creation of a commission to look into contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, including how much waste, fraud and abuse has occurred and who, if anyone, has been held accountable.

- Protections for whistle-blowers from reprisals when they expose what they believe to be misconduct in war-related contracts.

- Requirements for intelligence agencies to provide the armed services committees in Congress any requested documents within 45 days, unless the administration asserts executive privilege.

- Requirements that ban money authorized for military purposes from going to establish permanent bases or installations in Iraq and prohibit the use of federal funds for use in exercising control over Iraq's oil resources.

It seems the president doesn't want the private wartime contracts that have enriched so many of his party's campaign contributors examined too closely. Nor does it appear that he wants Congress looking too closely at the way he has used the intelligence agencies to act in illegal and unconstitutional ways.

Since Bush signed those provisions into law, he must abide by them under our nation's established separation of powers. His claims that the president has constitutional powers allowing him to disregard certain U.S. statutes are dead wrong.

[Last modified February 11, 2008, 21:29:40]