President Continues To Void the Will of Congress With Signing Statements

John F. McManus
JBS
Thursday, January 31, 2008

The U.S. Constitution designates the President as the "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States." President Bush seems to believe that this grant of power makes him at all times commander in chief of the entire nation with powers equivalent to a king.

The National Defense Authorization Act recently passed by Congress prohibits the use of federal funds to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s signing statement cancels that sensible directive. With the stroke of his pen, his action also voids protections for whistle-blowers who complain about corruption in government contract work, impedes turning over to Congress intelligence reports, and cancels the creation of a bipartisan commission designed to investigate allegations of waste and mismanagement in federal contract work.

Harvard Law professor David Barron termed the president’s use of the commander-in-chief designation to void law "a dramatic departure from American constitutional tradition." He expressed concern over the practice that allows any president to defy laws that limit his conduct. In 2006, the American Bar Association also condemned the use of signing statements designed to alter or void law as "contrary to our constitutional separation of powers."

The Constitution clearly states that all law-making power is possessed by Congress. While it is also true that laws passed by Congress need a president’s signature or his failure to act within ten days before each is fully enacted, he has no power to alter a law presented to him. He can veto it while pointing to his reasons for doing so, but any veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority of each House. Simply voiding any portion of what he is asked to sign is totally unconstitutional.

Mr. Bush is not the first president to attach signing statements to bills presented to him. In previous years, many of these simply expressed approval of the measure. But the tactic of employing a signing statement to void portions of laws had been used before Mr. Bush made the practice routine. Yet, precedents themselves can never alter the Constitution. Clearly, the practice employed by President Bush should be terminated. America’s founders did not envision kingly power possessed by the occupant of the White House.

Click here to discuss this story in our forum Yahoo! MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Print Email This Page to: