Executive Power and the Line Item Veto

Does it not seem odd that our inflexible, belligerent President, George Bush, has only vetoed one bill submitted by Congress in his nearly six years in office?  It in fact seems downright unbelievable until you leam from syndicated columnist, Morton Kondrake, editor of Capitol Hill newspaper, "Roll Call", that Mr. Bush has, in effect, line-item vetoed 800 items in more than 100 bills he has signed.

We have to remember, in addition to a White House full of lawyers, we have Attorney Alberto Gonzales of "Geneva Convention is quaint" fame and relatively recently appointed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.  Mr. Alito is crucial here because during the Reagan administration as a staff attorney for the Office of Legal Counsel he wrote a memorandum making the case for interpretive "Signing Statements" a tool to increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.  Since the line item veto is unconstitutional a Signing Statement can circumvent this constitutional inconvenience.

I have learned from extensive material just recently sent to me from Congressman Sherrod Brown's office that Signing Statements originated with James Monroe, but were issued primarily if the president had an opinion or reservation, pro or con, on the legislation he had signed into law.  They were seldom issued and of little real importance until Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued 247 among them in which even though they signed the bills offered considerable interpretive and constitutional challenges.

Enter "King George" who alone has issued over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges, some in which he blatantly appoints himself the arbiter of interpretation of sections of a bill he plans to implement beyond it's intent or ignore at his discretion.

As just an average citizen, with no training in law or experience in public office this admittedly tedious information would not have attracted my attention had it not been for Senator John McCain's anti-torture bill which I - and I believe most Americans - am very gratified to see it's passage.  Then we learn of President Bush's Signing Statement in which he declares he may honor, or not, the legislation at his discretion.  And to add sorrow to insult a disappointingly compliant John McCain does not even stand up for his own legislation.

At least two months ago I brought this despicable issue in a letter to the attention of Senators George Voinovich and Mike DeWine.  Although they have previously answered my correspondence, to this issue they have not replied.  However, after a phone call to Congressman Sherrod Brown's office, within three days I received extensive information on this issue to supplement Morton Kondrake's syndicated article.

In a nutshell. President Bush while signing Senator McCain's Detainee Amendment prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, issued the following Signing Statement:  "The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the 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."

On July 24, 2006 the American Bar Association challenged the uses of certain Signing Statements, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. has suggested Congress give itself power to sue the Executive. 

In addition to Mr. Kondrike my sources include NPR, Wikipedia online encyclopedia,

Slate Magazine, Nieman Watchdog, and the Boston Globe.

Buz Cormany