In an outrageous but all-too-familiar move, President Bush
has declared
in a signing statement that he is entitled to ignore certain provisions of the
FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which he signed into law yesterday. One of these
provisions would establish an independent, bipartisan Commission on Wartime
Contracting; another
would extend whistleblower protections to employees of defense
contractors.
POGO strongly supported both of these provisions (see here
and here),
and we’re dismayed to learn that the White House now considers them to be
optional.
According to the White House press
release, the burdensome provisions “purport to impose requirements that
could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional
obligations...The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner
consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”
As many reporters have pointed
out, the use of presidential signing statements has increased at an alarming rate under
the current administration. But should the
president be allowed to selectively disregard any part of a bill that he signs
into law? Senator Levin (D-MI), Chairman
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CQ Today that “the courts have ruled that the president cannot pick
and choose provisions of appropriations bills that [he wants] to comply with.” A blue-ribbon American Bar Association task
force also found
that these signing statements “undermine the rule of law and our
constitutional system of separation of powers.”
-- Michael Smallberg
Comments