2 in Congress rip Bush on bypassing of laws -Savage/Globe

[Rose Siding]

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 5, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Two Massachusetts congressmen announced yesterday that they will sponsor a resolution to protest President Bush's assertions that he is not bound to obey more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years, saying that Congress must push back against the White House's expansive interpretation of executive authority.

Representatives Barney Frank of Newton and Edward J. Markey of Malden, both Democrats, said in a joint statement that Bush's legal claims are part of an ''alarming pattern" in which the administration is ''blatantly and deliberately violating the fundamental constitutional principle of the right of Congress to make the laws of this country."
...
The lawmakers said their resolution will call for writing all future ''legislation in ways that make such abuse of a constitutional principle impossible," such as by including provisions to cut off funds ''in cases where the administration has attempted to pick and choose which parts of the law it will follow."

It will also instruct the counsel for the House of Representatives to file any ''appropriate" lawsuits against Bush on behalf of the chamber ''to defend the right of the Congress to legislate," although the congressmen acknowledged that the Supreme Court has generally tried to stay out of disputes between Congress and the White House.

''We believe that this resolution will give every member of the House the opportunity to make clear whether or not he or she stands behind the fundamental principles of government set forward in the US Constitution," they said. ''In the absence of such action, we fear that the president and his appointees will take silence as acquiescence and continue to flout constitutional principle."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/05/2_in_congress_rip_bush_on_bypassing_of_laws/

[FtWayneBlue]

1. Hooray for them!

I say it's high time more people, especially those with some power, start standing up and pushing back against this runaway junta.

[babylonsister]

2. This is SO IMPORTANT! K&R, and thanks again, Rose Siding! nt

[Rose Siding]

4. Savage is the guy who broke the story -or at least counted the laws

bush tossed. I didn't see any other media cover this dem reaction. Grr!

[rodeodance]

7. you are right. very little coverage. I think Keith O. covered though.

[sueh]

3. I'm glad Franks and Markey are doing this....

but it's a sad commentary on the state of our nation.

[Klukie]

5. I think these signing statements.....

could be what brings bush down. How anyone can ignore this is beyond me. He might have got away with one or two, but 750. I called Spectors office yesterday to offer my full support for the June hearings. Thanks for the post.

[rodeodance]

6. "The White House has said little about Bush's practice,......"

Reaction has been mounting in Congress to a report in Sunday's Boston Globe detailing the interpretations Bush has quietly entered into the federal record when signing bills into law. Since taking office, Bush has asserted the authority to ignore more than 750 new statutes because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

The White House has said little about Bush's practice, other than to note that previous administrations have also at times declared that they will not enforce a law they believe to be unconstitutional.

But Bush has challenged far more laws -- most of which he says infringe on his own powers to run the government as he sees fit -- than any predecessor in history.

''We were aware of some instances of the Bush administration unconstitutionally announcing its right to ignore duly passed laws, but the magnitude of this pattern of violations had not previously been clear," Markey and Frank said. ''It is essential that Congress emphatically state our disapproval of this behavior and to do whatever we can constitutionally to reassert the primacy of the Constitution's allocation of powers to the various branches."

[rodeodance]

8. more.

....''We were aware of some instances of the Bush administration unconstitutionally announcing its right to ignore duly passed laws, but the magnitude of this pattern of violations had not previously been clear," Markey and Frank said. ''It is essential that Congress emphatically state our disapproval of this behavior and to do whatever we can constitutionally to reassert the primacy of the Constitution's allocation of powers to the various branches."

The lawmakers said their resolution will call for writing all future ''legislation in ways that make such abuse of a constitutional principle impossible," such as by including provisions to cut off funds ''in cases where the administration has attempted to pick and choose which parts of the law it will follow."

It will also instruct the counsel for the House of Representatives to file any ''appropriate" lawsuits against Bush on behalf of the chamber ''to defend the right of the Congress to legislate," although the congressmen acknowledged that the Supreme Court has generally tried to stay out of disputes between Congress and the White House.

''We believe that this resolution will give every member of the House the opportunity to make clear whether or not he or she stands behind the fundamental principles of government set forward in the US Constitution," they said. ''In the absence of such action, we fear that the president and his appointees will take silence as acquiescence and continue to flout constitutional principle."

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. umm - what is the difference between "bypassing" a law, or "breaking" one

.
.
.

just wondering . . .

[enough]

10. k&r

[UpInArms]

11. The Cato Instititute has just released a white paper denouncing

the *Co administration's flaunting of the Constitution

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

and here is the summary:

Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of G W. Bush

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

In recent judicial confirmation battles, President Bush has repeatedly—and correctly—stressed fidelity to the Constitution as the key qualification for service as a judge. It is also the key qualification for service as the nation's chief executive. On January 20, 2005, for the second time, Mr. Bush took the presidential oath of office set out in the Constitution, swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With five years of the Bush administration behind us, we have more than enough evidence to make an assessment about the president's commitment to our fundamental legal charter

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and

a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

Full text at http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lync...

here are the "credentials" of the authors of this Cato Institute white paper:

Gene Healy is senior editor and author of "Arrogance of Power Reborn: The Imperial Presidency and Foreign Policy in the Clinton Years". Timothy Lynch is director of the Project on Criminal Justice and author of "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton."

[eppur_se_muova]

12. So now the professional Clinton-bashers are bashing ** ?? Oh, irony!

Bet you know what a Constitutionally-responsible President looks like now, huh, guys?