Reichert Burned by Presidential Signing Statements

The Seattle Times reported on Friday that Dave Reichert has written a letter to Bush...

...complaining that Bush is weakening a key provision in a new homeland-security bill to prevent inexperienced political cronies from running the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

After signing the legislation, which passed Congress last month, Bush issued "signing statements" that said he could ignore provisions that set minimum qualifications for the FEMA administrator and allow the administrator to directly advise Congress.

The qualifications provision, Bush wrote: "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

The article quotes Reichert as saying, "The federal government's credibility hangs in the balance." It also points out that Reichert, the House GOP's point person for FEMA reform, did not learn about the signing statement until days later.

This comes on the heels of the WA-08 debate 10 days ago at which the candidates were asked about their opinion of presidential signing statements, specifically as used by Bush:

Darcy Burner provided a forceful rebuke of Bush's abuse of signing statements, adding, "There's a lot of discussion these days from the Republicans about flag burning. I think they should spend a little less time worrying about burning the flag and a little more time worrying about whether they're burning the Constitution." Meanwhile, Reichert dismissed the concerns, saying that all presidents have used presidential signing statements, and that there was nothing unprecedented about it.

I wonder if he feels the same way now.

The fact is Bush has abused this power to challenge hundreds of laws he didn't want to have to abide by. The Boston Globe wrote in April:

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.

Presidential signing statements have been used by other presidents, but not at the level that Bush has used them. The Globe tells us that George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years. Yet they write that, 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.

While signing statements may be a long used tool, John W. Dean tells us they are being used by Bush dangerously and could lead to "serious trouble".

He writes:

Generally, Bush's signing statements tend to be brief and very broad, and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his reading of the law. None has yet been tested in court. But they do appear to be bulking up the powers of the presidency. Here are a few examples:

Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.

Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President's undefined "prerogative powers" under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush's signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as "advisory."

The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.

As Phillip Cooper observes, the President's signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush's signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President's signing statements -- "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational."

So even when Congress passes a bill by a large majority, and without a presidential veto, the signing statements can effectively rewrite that bill.

Reichert, who has already been on the record stating that Republicans leaders tell him how to vote, is now seeing how ineffective his "leadership" has been in Congress under this administration. That's a great failing in the congressman, as he has proven himself to be one that is turned one way or another by Republicans, while his constituents are left wondering what the hell is going on. He has shown himself to either be naive about politics and Congress, or ignorant to a fault about these matters. His persistent claims that the way things work in Congress is that you pass a flawed bill first then fix it after the fact is the worst sign of naivety - and pretty much how Bush probably sees things when he uses signing statements on "flawed" bils. Reichert's dismissal of the matter of presidential signing statements when they so obviously hurt legislation and our Constitution is either a sign of blindness or unquestioned fealty to George Bush.

Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if Karl Rove advises Bush to throw Reichert a bone in an attempt to prop up the congressman in the eyes of voters. We will be watching for any such indications that might occur.