Editorial: President Bush

Congress can be like a lumbering dinosaur. When bitten in the tail, the sensation of pain can take an astonishing length of time to reach the brain. The impact of President Bush’s “signing statements” seems to have finally reached the congressional brain.

The lawmakers have finally woken up to the fact that Bush doesn’t feel bound by some 750 laws Congress has passed. On signing bills into law, Bush has taken to appending a statement wherein he reserves the right to interpret that law as he sees fit or ignore it altogether. At which point, one might well ask, what’s the point of having a Congress?

The White House vehemently argues that the president has the right to do this because of his constitutional powers as commander in chief and the authority Congress granted him in its post-9/11 resolution authorizing him to retaliate against the terrorists.

The Republican-led Congress, not wanting to open up the whole Iraq war issue, is unwilling to go back to that resolution to clear up any mischief it created. But the White House’s interpretation of the Constitution seems both a long stretch and a serious encroachment on the separation of powers. The Congress enacts the laws, and the president, as part of his office, is bound to “faithfully execute” them.

Using another line of defense, White House press secretary Tony Snow argues, “It’s important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.” Indeed it is, but the time for that is while the law with those problematic provisions is being drafted.

Perhaps the most egregious in-your-face rebuff to Congress was when it reaffirmed, with considerable back patting and fanfare, standing U.S. laws against torture. Bush signed it but effectively reserved the right to torture if he felt it necessary.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is finally holding hearings on the Bush administration’s wholesale use of signing statements to rewrite or brush off Congress’ handiwork. Said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of that committee, “It’s a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution.”

Alert the tail. The message has arrived at the brain.