By Dave Lindorff
Who’s minding the store in Washington?
While President George W. Bush was standing before the members of Congress on January 28 laying out his plans, such as they are, for the final year of his second term in the White House, he was also seriously and perhaps fatally undermining the authority of Congress with a new signing statement, attached to the latest National Defense Authorization Act, in which he declared that he would simply violate or fail to comply with four provisions.
Let me say that again. The president states in writing that he is not going to obey and will not be bound by four parts of a law duly passed by the Congress.
Just so you know that we’re not talking about the naming of a bridge or a new ship, the four provisions of the act which the president is going to ignore are:
* the establishment of a commission to investigate contractor fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq
* the protection or whistleblowers who report contractor fraud from harassment or official retribution
* a requirement that US intelligence agencies respond to Congressional requests for documents
* a ban on funding for any permanent military bases in Iraq, and on any actions that would seek to give the US control over Iraq’s oil resources or oil money.
Now first of all, let’s see what the constitution has to say. Article I, the first actual statement about how our government works, which comes right after the preamble about “We the People,” states unambiguously:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
It goes on to state that:
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration by two thirds of that House shall agree to apss the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law…If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it.”
Note that there is no asterisk or footnote saying anything about the president having the power to simply ignore those legislative powers or to violate them at will. If he does not veto the entire bill—and in this case he did not, he signed it—it becomes the Law of the Land.
Article I also defines the powers of the Congress expansively, stating that it has the power to lay and collect taxes, to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, ro call forth the militia, and
“to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Article II goes on to define the powers of the president. It states:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
It goes on to explicitly define and limit the president’s powers, specifically to being “commander in chief” of the armed forces (not of the country or of the government!), to the granting of reprieves and pardons (except in the case of impeachments), to making treaties (subject to Senate approval) and appointing officers to the cabinet and the courts (all subject to Senate approval).
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
| 11 comments |
|
The people must rise Or congress will cave they are not Americans. by
dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 2:25:19 AM
|
|
Congress has fatally undermined themselves. Actually, I can't lay much blame on Bush. He's merely a power-mad, bloodthirsty psychopath, merely doing what such "people" were born to do. At this point, I wish Bush would take that final step that many forward-looking dictators take, and simply dissolve Congress. Obviously, they're an annoyance to both "the people" and their dictator. Why should they even be getting a paycheck? by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 385 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 7:30:05 AM
|
|
|
Bad enough they get a paycheck doubly so since they recently gave themselves a raise. by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 10:22:55 AM
|
|
|
Not according to Conyers ... The following article sums it up and this statement issued by a Conyers spokesperson, "A sitting President is not subject to the law as long as he remains in office. He can CONTINUE to break laws as long as he remains in office." http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_donna_no_080201_conyers_staffer_says.htm Every time I read something like this it just confirms my worst suspicions. That some time ago the citizens of this country have been regulated to no more than an audience. Spectators to a vast criminal organization barely disguised as a functioning government. And I'm not looking for Pelosi or Conyers to act on impeachment. After all the brazen crimes committed they could have already impeached on what makes anyone think they'll act on this? It's not like bush hasn't already place 11,000 signing statements before this one. Pelosi and Conyers are part of the problem, not a solution. I'm firmly convinced that another corrupt election won't solve the problems now entrenched in this farce of a government. That we need a Bastille Day to rid ourselves of officials who don't listen to us and have infested this government from top to bottom. Gut this system to the core and put corporations in there proper place and put people back as the number one concern. To say that a sitting president is above the law of the land is to place a king at our helm. We once fought to rid ourselves of such tyranny, that time may have well arrived once again. "The tree of liberty must for time to time be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 1067 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM
|
|
Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy. |
In the words of the great Bob Dole, "Where's the Outrage?" It's tempting to think that the American public is no longer capable of political outrage. Just as a very Big Lie is far more effective than a little lie, when terrible state crimes are committed with great frequency, their power to shock the populace wanes. Moreover, our media & educational system (deliberately) exacerbate the population's disorientation. American society doesn't officially recognize the concept that the powerful can commit great crimes against the Constitution, & against the population. Under the surface, though, I think the problem is not so much that people don't feel outrage, as that they don't know how to express it in organized fashion. Political parties are supposed to be channels for expressing such sentiment; but clearly, in this country, they no longer serve any such purpose. Indeed, they do just the opposite: they attempt to exploit powerful feelings held by different sections of the population, but only to contain these sentiments; & to channel them in directions acceptable to elites. The Congress really deserves to be hanged on lampposts by angry mobs, for what they have done (& what they've failed to do). That statement might strike some as extreme, but the truth is, both parties passed that point years ago. These people swore solemnly to defend the Constitution, and they have violated that oath, profoundly and repeatedly. In recent years, they are not even trying to remain faithful to their sworn oaths -- they are merely trying to create a PR environment in which it's more difficult for the public to fully appreciate the crimes they've aided & abetted. by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1026 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 1:10:57 PM
|
|
|
Re: "Crime of the Century: Time for Congress to Stand Up"
by
Munich (0 articles, 47 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 676 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 1:33:19 PM
|
|
If only we had that robot, "Gort". I'll bet "Gort" could clean the filth out of Washington DC in about an hour. by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 385 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 3:43:00 PM
|
|
Skin diver, spear fisher, trash collector, roughneck, scuba diver, football player, tennis player, mechanical engineer, aerospace engineer, husband, father, math teacher, fisherman. |
Could it be... Anthrax? A stray nuke? by
Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 7:22:25 PM
|
|
I have achieved nothing of consequence apart from raising children in a way that they would excel where I failed. And they are on good tracks. |
9/11 The Crime Of The Century 9/11 was and remains and will always be The Crime Of This Century and the centuries to come, perpetrated by the criminal fascist regime for fearmongering and warmongering purposes and blamed on innocents who had nothing to do with it. by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 377 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 3:33:07 PM
|
|
SpiritBlooms lives in Southern California. She's a former technical writer and currently an aspiring fiction writer and poet. |
The biggest outrage is that more Republicans aren't angry that their President lied to them along with the rest of us, and has overreached his power over them as well as us. But impeachment takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to succeed, and it likely wouldn't at this point. Get the Republicans outraged enough about it, and maybe something will happen. As long as it's just liberals outraged, we're stuck -- until (and unless) the November election fills more Senate seats, and keeps House seats filled, with people as outraged as we are. by
SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 5:25:31 PM
|
| 11 comments |
