Bush Declares Exceptions to Sections of Two Bills He Signed Into Law

Bush Declares Exceptions to Sections of Two Bills He Signed Into Law
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — President Bush asserted on Tuesday that he had the executive power to bypass several parts of two bills: a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from White House control.

Mr. Bush signed the two measures into law. But he then issued a so-called signing statement in which he instructed the executive branch to view parts of each as unconstitutional constraints on presidential power.

In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq”; another required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there.

The sections “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations,” including as commander in chief, Mr. Bush wrote.

In the other bill, he raised concerns about two sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency.

One section gives the inspectors general a right to counsels who report directly to them. But Mr. Bush wrote in his signing statement that such lawyers would be bound to follow the legal interpretations of the politically appointed counsels at each agency.

The other section requires the White House to tell Congress what each inspector general said about the administration’s budget proposal for their offices. Such a requirement, Mr. Bush wrote, would infringe on “the president’s constitutional authority” to decide what to recommend to Congress.

Mr. Bush will not submit another budget request before his administration ends in January, so his objections are unlikely to face a test on his watch. Still, the bill’s sponsor, Representative Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, said he hoped that the next president would overturn Mr. Bush’s signing statements.

“These things create uncertainty in the law that should not be there,” Mr. Cooper said.

The White House has defended Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as lawful and appropriate. But in 2006, the American Bar Association called the device “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.”

Mr. Bush has used the signing statements to assert a right to bypass more than 1,100 sections of laws. By comparison, all previous presidents combined challenged about 600 sections of bills.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I am not a lawyer just an old infantryman, but seeing that in over 200 years all 43 previous Presidents signed "exceptions" or "signing statements" to laws passed by Congress totaled 600 and in the past 7 1/2 years President Bush has signed 1100 of them himself, you have to ask yourself, didn't he remember the part of his oath of office, to defend the United States and obey all of it's laws, not just the ones he wanted to but all of them, being President does not mean you can change laws or write yourself exceptions to the ones you don't like, you either veto them, or take your case to the Supreme Court and have the law over turned.

I want a President that realizes his place in our nation, as the leader not the "king" this is not a dictatorship, our elected President is accountable to us the public, he is not "above the law" he is supposed to be enforcing our laws, not making his own. Somehow I expect to see "King George" to decree "pardons" for all of his "inner circle" and advisors legal and defense, intelligence and anyone else that is determined to have violated the laws of the US during the Bush administration, and Scooter Libby will get a clean bill of health, on W's way out the door.

As an NCO I was expected to follow all of the laws in the US plus the UCMJ, I was responsible to make sure my soldiers did the same, I was responsible if they made mistakes under my command, I was accountable, why isn't anyone in this administration accountable? Is there anyone reading this that would have allowed this kind of behavior in your command? I doubt it. The words Duty, Honor and Country meant something to us, they are not just words, they are a way of life.

Sphere: Related Content