| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| President Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act | |
| 2008-01-30 | |
| President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill. Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them. "Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President." One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq. The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
| |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #16 Because there is more legitimacy That wasn't the question. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-01-30 16:18 |
| #15 Good for Bush, Cuts the Dems off at the knees. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-01-30 16:17 |
| #14 13 We need the country to be committed to Iraq in the long-term, and a treaty is how you make that happen Why? Because there is more legitimacy behind a treaty that has been voted on by a legislative body and approved by the executive. It speaks as a collective representing the populous instead of a single man acting on his own. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2008-01-30 15:33 |
| #13 We need the country to be committed to Iraq in the long-term, and a treaty is how you make that happen Why? |
| Posted by: g(r)om-jobar 2008-01-30 14:45 |
| #12 I drive by the Globe on the way home. I'll let everyone know if it's surrounded by Bushitler tanks and if the black helicopters are landing troops on the roof... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-01-30 14:26 |
| #11 ...except for laws that overstep Congress' constitutionally granted powers by interfering with other powers granted to the Executive by that same Constitution. |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-01-30 14:24 |
| #10 Note how the Boston Globe cites 47 different experts that agree with their view, and none from any other point of view. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-01-30 13:51 |
| #9 I, for one, give Speaker Pelosi's objection-to-signing-statement the force of law. Only Congress can tell the President what to do! Oh, and Warren Burger's Supreme Court, too. |
| Posted by: The Hon. Sen. Reid 2008-01-30 13:50 |
| #8 Well, I'm quite sure that I will thoroughly dislike signing statements if either Hillary or Obama takes office. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2008-01-30 12:50 |
| #7 [Aris Katsaris has been pooplisted.] |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2008-01-30 12:44 |
| #6 "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that." Never stopped congress before. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-01-30 11:49 |
| #5 "I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. Hee hee! Worst case: Ask for forgiveness later! I wonder if this was factored into accepting the bill in the first place. In any case, if Nancy is so upset, she can put the Judicial Branch to work to clear up any misunderstandings. That's why it's there. By the time it gets through that, we should be done in Iraq altogher! "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that." Including the part about how the President doesn't have to pay attention to laws that are unconstitutional? |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-01-30 11:36 |
| #4 Lame duck? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-01-30 11:26 |
| #3 One of those signing statements again. Nothing gets the nutroots riled like signing statements. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2008-01-30 10:52 |
| #2 Bush finally is getting some balls to go up against a surrender first type of congress. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-01-30 10:50 |
| #1 Bush knows his Teddy (the good one) Roosevelt. Congress refused to allocate funds for Roosevelt to send the new US Navy around the world on tour, so Teddy sent them halfway, then said to congress that if they wanted a US Navy at all, they had better pay to get them back. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-01-30 10:32 |