Democratic Wins (If They Mean Anything)

These are nothing to write home about, and certainly not as important as the sham of an ethics bill passed by the House the other day, but this week has seen a couple Democratic victories in Congress. First the House approved a very strict anti-gouging law that was pretty much written by Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington.

With bipartisan support, the House approved on a 389-34 vote a measure that would create a price-gouging law and permit large fines and jail time for violators.

The Senate has yet to consider the legislation.

The House did reject a Republican bill that supporters said would make it easier to build refineries in hopes of easing tight gasoline supplies.

All but 13 Democrats opposed the measure, intended to quicken the permitting process. They said it would not bring down gas prices, could lessen environmental protection and usurp local say where refineries go.

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, said the problem was not a delay in permitting.

"The real reason we have a refinery shortage is the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the ... refinery bottlenecks," he said.

It's a cosmetic measure, and putting the authority to bring penalties in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission and not the Justice Department waters it down, but with GOP domination in Congress (for the next 6 months, anyway), you have to take the victories where you can get them. Like on denying funds for permanent bases in Iraq, which has now passed both houses of Congress. Now, it's debatable whether or not any additional funds are needed for these bases, as so many of them appear to be already built. But it's out in the light of day now, and Congress is on record against enduring bases.

But the real elephant in the room is whether or not Congress should bother making any laws at all. Hundreds of Congressional statutes have been nullified by Presidential signing statements, according to media reports. And Sen. Arlen Specter is pretty mad about it:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing the White House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.

''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"

Specter said he plans to hold the hearing in June. He said he intends to call administration officials to explain and defend the president's claims of authority, as well to invite constitutional scholars to testify on whether Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his power.

It's unclear what Specter and the Judiciary Committee can really do about this, outside of offering it up for public scrutiny. And in an election year, that might be enough to at least slow down the perverse use of signing statements. I think the Democrats, for their part, might want to get this out in the open rather than relying on moderate Republicans to make noise. I'd love to see a press conference where Harry Reid says, "Have you all noticed that this President hasn't vetoed a single bill in his entire term of office? Don't you find that odd? This is unprecedented in the history of the country. Have you ever wondered why? Do you think maybe it's because he's using signing statements to get around Congressional overrides? That he's crossing out laws made by Congress in the manner of an absolute monarch?"

Future President Feingold gets it:

It was during a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on the FBI that Specter yesterday announced his intent to hold a hearing on Bush's legal authority. Another committee member, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, also questioned Bush's assertions that he has the authority to give himself an exemption from certain laws.

''Unfortunately, the president's signing statement on the Patriot Act is hardly the first time that he has shown a disrespect for the rule of law," Feingold said. ''The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that the president has used signing statements to reserve the right to break the law more than 750 times."

[...]

Feingold also said Bush's legal claims have cast a cloud over a host of rules and restrictions that Congress has passed, using its constitutional authority to regulate the executive branch of government.

''How can we know whether the government will comply with the new laws that we passed?" Feingold said. ''I'm not placing the blame on you (FBI Director Robert Mueller), obviously, or your agents who work to protect this country every day, but how can we have any assurance that you or your agents have not received a secret directive from above requiring you to violate laws that we all think apply today?"

Mueller replied: ''I can assure with you with regard to the FBI that our actions would be taken according to appropriate legal authorities."

This is unbelievably serious and Congress needs to draw attention to it if they want to have a say over anything that happens in the country in the next two and a half years. Specter said it best.

''We're undergoing a tsunami here with the flood coming from the executive branch on one side and the judicial branch on the other," Specter said. ''There may as well soon not be a Congress. . . . And I think that most members don't understand what's happening."

You would think the Congress would have a vested interest in its own relevance. But as long as they give up their responsibility to govern, they weaken the institution of checks and balances. This should be THE campaign slogan for the midterms. "Vote Democrat: Restore Checks and Balances!"