Bush's Newest Tack: Bypass Congress

[babylonsister]

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2007/11/16/bushs-newest-tack-bypass-congress.html

Bush's Newest Tack: Bypass Congress
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted November 16, 2007

Since the start of his administration, President Bush has disdained what he calls "small ball," preferring to confront big problems with big solutions. Not anymore. As he tries to end-run a balky Congress, Bush is taking a page from Bill Clinton's playbook by adopting a series of mini-initiatives to change policy through executive orders and administration actions that don't require legislation. An example: He recently ordered some military aviation routes cleared for "express lanes" to facilitate commercial flights along the congested East Coast to reduce delays during the holidays. It seemed a popular move and gained him lots of media attention, even though bad weather and a severely strained air-traffic-control system could easily foil the plan. Bush also ordered increases in compensation for airline passengers who are bumped from overbooked flights (although it won't take effect for several months). Other unilateral moves are in the pipeline to improve healthcare for injured war veterans, allow more farm workers to enter the country legally, and promote alternative fuels and reduce the use of foreign oil. Although these solo actions may not go very far, Bush has little choice. His influence with the Democratic majority in Congress is dwindling fast as he enters his final year in office.

[stillcool]

1. I don't understand....

is this something new...and why the reference to Bill Clinton?

Friday, Jan. 13, 2006

By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.

Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.

President Bush and the attorneys advising him may also anticipate that the signing statements will help him if and when the relevant laws are construed in court - for federal courts, depending on their views of executive power, may deem such statements relevant to their interpretation of a given law. After all, the law would not have passed had the President decided to veto it, so arguably, his view on what the law meant ought to (within reason) carry some weight for the court interpreting it. This is the argument, anyway.
Bush has quietly been using these statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed (even though these statements are published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents) until recently, when President Bush's used a signing statement to attempt to nullify the recent, controversial McCain amendment regarding torture, which drew some media attention.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

[flashl]

2. I was about to ask the same question. n/t

[RC]

3. Simple: "They did it too." So it must be ok.