Grumbling Without Doing

Congress appears to be vexed over the President's wanton disregard of the legislative body and the laws of the country, as evidenced by his continuing use of "signing statements" that serve to nullify laws he doesn't like. I don't know if the emotion of being "vexed" will amount to anything more than a few harrumphs and a return to the business of lawmaking, now rendered meaningless by this challenge to Congressional authority.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," said Arlen Specter, a Republican whose Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings on the issue. "There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview." [...]

In addition to Specter's objections, Democrats called the signing statements an example of the administration trying to expand executive power.

"I believe that this new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California. "If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject — rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy."

These are the milquetoastiest of milquetoast statements coming out of the world's most deliberative body. Arlen Specter, the king of tough talk and no action, proposed suing the President on Wednesday. He's apparently "seriously considering" doing so. OOOOHHHH. Seriously considering! Next he'll be "determinedly mulling it over" and "nearing the end of deciding next steps!"

Without Specter stopping the considering and actually doing something, absolutely nothing will change. Such is the case in the majoritarian committees of Congress. And it's amazing to me that we have here a distinct challenge to Congressional authority, and nobody in the Congress seems to be that fired up about it. Maybe they don't care if the NSA is spying on all Internet traffic or if the government is using private data brokers to obtain personal telephone records of Americans. Maybe they feel like that doesn't affect them. But this is personal. It's basically a giant "fuck you" from the President to each and every member of Congress, and indeed every constituent who voted for them. But they must be too busy voting on flag-burning amendments to notice.

The media is similarly unmoved by this rejection of centuries-old Constitutional standards, save for Charlie Savage from The Boston Globe, who did the initial reporting. Dan Froomkin compiled a lengthy list of questions that the press could easily ask about these signing statements. To date, Tony Snow has fielded exactly one of these.

Q. What do these signing statements mean?

Q. What effect have they had? For instance, how do these signing statements translate into internal executive-branch memos?

Q. What precisely is the White House saying about the limits of executive power, if any, and the relationship between Article I and Article II of the Constitution?

Q. What exactly do White House lawyers mean by “unitary executive”?

Q. What does it mean when the president says things like “the executive branch shall construe section so-and-so in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President”? Should that be construed as notice that he plans to ignore it? Likewise when he says a provision will be construed in a manner “consistent with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs” or “consistent with my constitutional duty as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces”?

Q. When the president says the “Executive Branch shall construe as advisory certain provisions” of a law, does that mean he will ignore them? Will he let Congress know if he does so?

Q. From the president's perspective, how does the practice of issuing signing statements fit with the constitutional separation of powers? Why does the President think he can choose which laws to uphold? (Deb Junod, Eagan, Minn.)

Q. Why is it wrong for the judiciary to redefine the law but right for the President? Or: why is "activist judge" bad but "signing statement" good? Or: how is it a problem if the judicial branch takes power from the legislative, but not a problem if the executive branch takes power from the legislative? (Jonathan Krueger, Pleasanton, Calif.)

Q. Are there any statutes currently on the books whose express provisions the Administration is violating, or declining to enforce, in reliance on "signing statements" or the "inherent powers" of the presidency, whether as commander in chief or otherwise? If so, do the American people have a right to know what are they? Does Congress? Will you provide us a list? (Vince Canzoneri, Boston)

Q. Why make a big show of trying to get lawmakers to reach compromises with the White House on legislation (see John McCain's anti-torture legislation) if he's then going to append a signing statement proclaiming that there's no need for him to observe the very law he just signed? Why bother going through the motions at all? (Lou Morin, Freeport, Maine)

That'd be an interesting briefing. I'll be watching C-SPAN Fantasyland intently for it.

The American Bar Association has created a bipartisan task force, including former Reagan/Bush FBI Director William Sessions, to raise public awareness to the issue of signing statements. And I hope they do provide more attention to this danger to the rule of law. But until the Congress understands that they're the ones under attack, I don't see where there is to go. The Republican-dominated House and Senate are acting like Baghdad Bob in the middle of the war, claiming "We are not losing power" when they are clearly being made irrelevant. Somebody needs to say so. And fast.