Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Thu Dec 06th 2007, 05:00 PM
The title of this post is a serious but rhetorical question, as the answer should be obvious. By his actions, Bush has already declared himself dictator. How obvious does he have to be before Congress will act?
I mean that as a serious question. Seriously. Bear with me a minute. I and many other DUers have posted numerous articles advocating impeachment on numerous grounds. In this post I’ll discuss a reason that I’ve touched on many times but never discussed in detail: Bush’s numerous “signing statements”. This is the process whereby he signs a bill passed by Congress (rather than vetoing it), thereby officially making it the law of our land, as specified in our Constitution, but he appends a “signing statement” to it, which re-interprets the law as written by Congress.

Admittedly, there is some legitimate purpose to signing statements, as other presidents have used them in the past. There are sometimes situations where the language of Congress is ambiguous, so perhaps it sometimes makes sense for a president to append his interpretation of the law to the bill when he signs it.

Charlie Savage provides a history of presidential signing statements in his new book, “Takeover – The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy”. He notes that George W. Bush has so far issued more than 1,100 signing statements, in comparison to approximately 600 signing statements by all 42 of his predecessors combined. In fairness to Bush, signing statements have become much more common in recent times, beginning with the Reagan presidency: Reagan issued 95 signing statements in 8 years; Bush’s father issued 232 in 4 years; and Clinton issued 140 in 8 years.

But what is more important than the mere number of signing statements that Bush has issued is their nature and purpose. That’s what I will discuss in this post, using examples from Savage’s book

So, back to the question posed in the title of this post. Consider that question as you read over these examples of George Bush’s signing statements. And just as important, consider whether or not there is much or any substantive difference between declaring himself dictator and issuing hundreds of signing statements similar to the ones described below.

But before I get to the signing statement examples, let’s take a quick look at what our Constitution says about this.


The legislative powers provided in our Constitution

Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution says:

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.

Section 7 says that the President may veto bills passed by Congress, but that if he doesn’t veto them, or if Congress overrides his veto by a two thirds vote, then the bill “shall become a Law”.

Article II concerns the Executive Branch. It gives the President the power to execute the law. It gives absolutely no power to the president to make laws or to nullify them, except by presidential veto, which may be over-ridden by a two thirds vote of both houses of Congress.

That’s all we need to know in order to interpret whether or not George Bush’s signing statements violated the Constitution which he swore to “preserve, protect, and defend”, and whether or not there is a difference between issuing those hundreds of signing statements and declaring himself a dictator.


11 examples of George Bush’s signing statements

U.S. military intervention in Colombia
Congress enacted several laws (See section on “Citing unitary executive”) prohibiting U.S. troops from engaging in combat in Colombia (in our “War on drugs”) and capped the number of contractors and troops that we could use there.

Bush signing statement response: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law as advisory in nature.

Oversight of missing reconstruction money in Iraq
Congress named an Inspector General to investigate, among other things, missing billions of dollars that were supposed to go for the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure.

Bush signing statement response: “The CPA IG shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena…. (blah blah blah) … which would constitute a serious threat to national security”.

Diverting money from authorized programs to secret ones
Congress passed a law requiring the president to notify Congress before diverting money from authorized programs to secret ones, such as the Bush administration’s secret prison system.

Bush signing statement response: Bush claimed the right to bypass (See “Bush’s Latest Signing Statement”) those provisions of the bill: “I will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to those provisions.”

Use of unconstitutionally collected intelligence
Congress twice passed laws forbidding the use of intelligence that was collected in violation of our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Bush signing statement response: “Only the president (See paragraph 6), as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.”

Congressional torture ban
Congress appended a provision to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which banned torture.

Bush signing statement response: ''The executive branch shall construe (the law) in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief".

Training on the humane treatment of prisoners
Congress passed a law requiring the training of military prison guards in the humane treatment of prisoners.

Bush signing statement response: Bush told the military that he was not obligated to follow this. In fact, the new version of the Army Field Manual removes any reference to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions with respect to the treatment of detainees.

Reporting on civil liberty issues to Congress
Congress passed a bill requiring the Justice Department to report to Congress the use of wiretaps on U.S. soil, memos outlining new interpretations of domestic spying laws, and various other civil liberties issues.

Bush signing statement response: Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Disclosure of scientific information
Congressed passed a law saying that scientific information “prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted to Congress uncensored and without delay”.

Bush signing statement response: Bush said he could order researchers to withhold information from Congress if he thought its disclosure could impair national security, etc.

Transfer of nuclear technology to India
Congress passed a law prohibiting the transfer of nuclear technology to India if it violated certain international nonproliferation guidelines.

Bush signing statement response: Among several other objections to portions of the law, Bush wrote that “approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy as U.S. foreign policy."

Minimum qualifications for important FEMA positions
Largely in response to the incompetence with which the response to Hurricane Katrina was handled, Congress passed a law saying that for important FEMA positions the president must nominate a candidate who has “a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management….”

Bush signing statement response: Bush said that he could ignore those requirements because they “interfered with his power to make personnel decisions”.

Whistleblower protections
On several occasions Congress passed whistle-blower protection legislation.

Bush signing statement response: Bush routinely issued signing statements to whistle blower protections legislation to the effect that he can ignore the requirements. For example, Bush added a signing statement to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 saying that “The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress."

There are plenty more examples, but these should suffice for the purposes of this post.


A hypothetical conversation between a journalist and a Congressperson

This is a conversation that very much needs to take place and be publicized:

Journalist: If George Bush unilaterally declared himself dictator of our country, do you think that would provide sufficient justification for Congress to begin impeachment hearings?

Congressperson: Of course I do. We can’t allow presidents to declare themselves dictators. That would be the end of our democracy. That’s not even a serious question.

Journalist: Are you generally familiar with the numerous “signing statements” that George Bush has issued during his presidency?

Congressperson: Of course I am.

Journalist: Are you aware that he (describe details of 5 signing statements), thereby effectively nullifying those numerous laws enacted by Congress.

Congressperson: Uh, yes.

Journalist: Well, what’s the difference between doing that and declaring himself dictator?

Congressperson: Let’s not exaggerate this. He doesn’t do that with all the laws that we enact – only some of them.

Journalist: You mean, he only nullifies those laws enacted by Congress which he thinks are important to nullify?

Congressperson: Uh, yeah, he only nullifies some of our laws.

Journalist: So, what’s the difference between that and what a dictator does?

Congressperson: Look, George Bush has not DECLARED himself to be the dictator of our country.

Journalist: So, what’s the difference if he declares himself to be dictator and just being one?

Congressperson: Please don’t waste my time. This is the United States of America! We don’t tolerate dictators here.


Opinion of the American Bar Association on Bush signing statements

In 2006, an American Bar Association Task Force reviewed the Bush administration use of signing statements. The task force was bipartisan and included many prominent Republicans. It unanimously concluded that “President Bush should stop issuing statements claiming the power to bypass parts of laws he has signed”. Specifically, the report took issue with the Bush administration’s ridiculous assertion that the Constitution puts Bush beyond the reach of Congress in military matters and executive branch operations:

The president's constitutional duty is to enforce laws he has signed into being, unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court… The Constitution is not what the president says it is…. The recommendations that we make are an effort to correct practices that, if they continue, threaten to throw this country into a constitutional crisis…


What is Congress waiting for?

George Bush has committed numerous impeachable offenses in addition to his use of signing statements to evade his responsibility to enforce and abide by the laws that Congress enacts. His use of signing statements is no worse than many of his other high crimes and misdemeanors, including lying to Congress and the American people to justify a war of aggression and the routine use of torture.

One advantage of pursuing his signing statements on the road to impeachment is that that particular offense shouldn’t require much of an investigation at all, since it is all a matter of public record. Congress only needs to decide whether or not the President is required by our Constitution to enforce the laws that Congress enacts and abide by them. If Congress doesn’t have enough respect for the laws that it enacts to take the only measure left open to it to ensure that those laws are obeyed, then what are we paying them for?
Discuss (102 comments) | Recommend (14 votes)
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change


The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas.


The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office

In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.

Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…”

Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation.

Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level.

Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this.


Election fraud

The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration.

I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship.

My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001.

The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers.

I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later.

Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal.

In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention.

In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen.

Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008.


The tragedy of the Bush administration

The fake war on terrorism

I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.

With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city.

Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose

To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners.

Lying us into war

It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country.

Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy?

George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way.

I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too.


Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans

It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America.

Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans:

Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious"

Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles?

The movement for privatization of government functions

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service.

Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article.

The need for a free and independent press

Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media.

Health care

Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote.

An enquiring mind

One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country.

The dignity of all human beings

Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject.

A summary

And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans.


Historical events that help us understand our present

Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long.

Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate.


Political ideas

Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores.

But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists.

If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8793 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.