No doubt, we all remember the Schoolhouse Rock tune, "I'm just a bill". You know, sitting on Capitol Hill, who wanted to be a law one day. Well, we must be familiar with the typical, yet sinuous, journey a piece of legislation takes through the halls of Congress. Introduction, first and second reading, and then, maybe, to committee. After it squeaks its way through there, it'll be on to the full chamber, then on to the other house of Congress. If we're lucky, it'll one day land on the President's desk, where he'll either sign it into law, or it'll meet the wrong end of a veto and disappear back into the legislative soup.
It all seems quite straight-forward. Your elected representatives introduce laws that they find to be positive, or at least useful, to the governing of the United States. It's voted upon in the legislative, potentially reviewed by the Judicial, and signed by the executive. Democracy at work!
But what if the executive branch decided it didn't want to enforce the law, or thought they knew better (better than the judiciary, that is) how it should be interpreted. Well, that's too bad, because they're the executive branch (get it? Execute?), and they are constitutionally mandated to carry out the will of the people as determined by their elected representatives.
Not so fast, as Mr. Corso would say. Signing statements turn this process on its head. And President George W. Bush has been a prolific user of such statements, attaching them to approximately 10% of the major legislation that has passed by his desk. He isn't the first, or the only recent president to try to expand presidential power through the use of signing statements.
What's the problem with this strategy, one may ask? Well, suppose you wanted to torture some potential-terrorists down at Gitmo. And let's say the Congress said:
"well, we'll sanction rough stuff, but here's what you can't do. Why? Because there are some things that America stands for, and, well, gosh-darnit, we believe in the value of human life (unlike those terrorists), and, barring a ticking-bomb '24' incident (which basically never happens), we don't get anything useful out of tortured guys anyway. Let's just say that we are not going to blow these guys' balls off with a taser, and stick to the conventional tough stuff."
And well, the law's the law, right? Democracy prizes those darn things, even if those sadist jackholes in the caves don't. Bush confers with the executive power freaks in his administration, and they scoff. 'No way, we could get in trouble because we've already been breaking the law', they say... So, Bush signs a little paper attached to this long piece of legislation that worked its way all the way through Congress. And, voila, the executive branch doesn't have to follow the law.
This isn't how Democracy is supposed to work.
John McCain understands this, unlike any other presidential candidate. He has sworn off signing statements like they were the plague. Obama hasn't, and neither has Senator Clinton. But of course, how could she? It was Bill Clinton that tried to get the line-item veto so he could pull a similar kabuki during his first term.
When prompted, McCain says "Never, never, never". He adds that he'll just veto bills he doesn't agree with. What a novel concept, not to mention a great stand for the sanctity of the balance of powers described in our Constitution. A refreshing bit of respect for the law, and a strong stance from Senator McCain, someone who, when it comes to public integrity, transparency and accountability seems to "just get it".
No comments:
Post a Comment