Blatant disregard for separation of powers and rule of law

But then again, that's what I've come to expect from the Bush administration.

If you're not familiar with things called signing statements, than you have no clue how the Bush administration really operates.

First, here's some government 101:

Our governmental system separates powers to various branches of government. Those branches check and balance each other, in theory. The executive branch has the power to appoint judges and officials. The legislative branch makes the laws which the executive branch in turn is supposed to enforce. The check and balance comes through the veto. If the veto isn't used or is bypassed, too bad.

Bush has no regard for the rule of law though. Throughout his presidency he has made extensive use of the aforementioned signing statements. Other presidents used these to state how great the law was or whose needs it was there to serve. Pure fluff, no bite, with a few exceptions.

Bush has used them extremely liberally in a much different way. His use of them is similar to that of a line-item veto which allows a president to veto the portions of a bill he doesn't like. However, that power #1 hasn't be given by congress to this president (it was given to Clinton) and #2 was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court (taking it away from Clinton).

Cutting to the chase, Bush puts these things on bills basically saying he reserves the right to completely ignore the content of the bill. Take this article for example:

"In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

"But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

So he signs a law into effect and then states that he reserves the right to not follow it, as though he is above the law. Take the torture ban congress passed. Here's the exact signing statement:

"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

This statement specifically refers to a unitary executive theory, under which the President asserts broad authority to use his independent judgment to interpret and apply the law. The President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved the right to waive the "torture ban" at his discretion, effectively re-writing the law passed by Congress.






That's bullshit.