Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to
disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting
that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when
it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and
regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress
be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower"
protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against
political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that
he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at
the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of
government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the
power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly
declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is
unconstitutional.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to
disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting
that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when
it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and
regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress
be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower"
protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against
political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that
he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at
the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of
government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the
power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly
declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is
unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush
reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing
it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain
requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he
ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many
legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he
believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about
declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he
says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him
alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of
the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own
powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the
law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of
the courts.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has
studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term,
said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly
working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White
House.
''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a
very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding
presidential power at the expense of the other branches of
government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and
very significant."
For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims
attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in
recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a
torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to
Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.
Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice
Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to
the laws he has signed.
Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions
about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot
Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has
''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will
faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the
Constitution."
But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution"
are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself
the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly
exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US
history.
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a
bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he
has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the
legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes
praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House,
Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in
which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the
federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The
statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the
Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the
bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of
negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill.
He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he
has signed.
''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them
are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back
those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or
the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher
Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who
studies executive power.
Military link
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban
-- involve the military.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to
declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules
for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But,
citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act
of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.
On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has
passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia,
where the US military is advising the government in its struggle
against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.
After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that
he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is
commander in chief.
Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress
before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a
secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected
terrorists are secretly imprisoned.
Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using
intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any
information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth
Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.
Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's
warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it
again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.
On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he,
as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be
used by the military.
In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib to

"Andy" <nospam@inhouse.com> wrote in message
news:n40d52tveqvfkp276d92p35b4gsph6lv5d@4ax.com...
Certain provisions of N-deal only advisory: Bush
Apparently seeking to allay concerns in India, US President George W Bush
has said his signing of the nuclear bill into law did not mean he endorsed
all its contents and that he considered certain portions like restrictions
on transfers as merely "advisory".
In a statement issued shortly after signing the Henry J Hyde US-India
Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act on Monday, Bush indicated that he did
not agree with provisions like Section 103 and Section 104 (d) (2) in the
legislation.
"Section 103 of the Act purports to establish US policy with respect to
various international affairs matters. My approval of the Act does not
constitute my adoption of the statements of policy as US foreign policy.
"Given the Constitution's commitment to the presidency of the authority to
conduct the nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe
such policy statements as advisory," Bush said.
Section 103 suggests that the US would oppose development of a capability to
produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state within or outside
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime.
The section also says that the US would work with Nuclear Suppliers Group
members to further restrict transfers of equipment and technologies related
to uranium enrichment, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and production of
heavy water to all countries, including India.
The US government will also seek to prevent transfer of these equipment and
technologies from other members of NSG or from any other source if the
transfers are suspended or terminated.
Section 104 (d) (2) says that no item subject to transfer guidelines of NSG
may be transferred to India if such transfer would be inconsistent with the
guidelines in effect on the date of the transfer.
These aspects in the bill are being seen with concern in India, leading to
demands there that the agreement be terminated.
The statement said section 104 (d) (2) of the Act were "...construed to
prohibit the executive branch from transferring or approving the transfer of
an item to India contrary to Nuclear Suppliers Group transfer guidelines
that may be in effect at the time of such future transfer, a serious
question would exist as to whether the provision unconstitutionally
delegated legislative power to an international body.
"In order to avoid this constitutional question, the executive branch shall
construe section 104(d)(2) as advisory.
The executive branch will give sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) the due weight
that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require,
to the extent consistent with US foreign policy," Bush said.
"The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act that mandate,
regulate, or prohibit submission of information to the Congress, an
international organisation, or the public, such as sections 104, 109, 261,
271, 272, 273, 274, and 275, in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority to protect and control information that could
impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of
the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties,"
Bush said.

"Andy" <nospam@inhouse.com> wrote in message
news:n40d52tveqvfkp276d92p35b4gsph6lv5d@4ax.com...

harmony wrote:

harmony wrote:

Merry Christmas.
All Hail Joe McCarthy!