Moving away from monarchy

Up front: This post isn't about Bush. This is about moving our country farther from monarchy, back toward balanced democracy, and reversing dumb decisions made by many presidents.

The Boston Globe reports that a strong majority of the American Bar Association's delegates opposed growing efforts that allow the president to overrule Congress and the Supreme Court, effectively overturning the three-pillared government that this nation is supposed to have.

``We're not saying a president doesn't have the right to express his opinion about what is constitutional," [ABA President Michael] Greco said. ``But what he doesn't have is the awesome power of declaring something unconstitutional and not enforcing it -- of accruing under himself the powers of all three branches."

The article makes it clear that signing statements have been used for centuries, but the (ab)use has greatly increased in recent decades. The current president has signed a single veto, yet effectively used hundreds of signing statements to veto portions of bills. In some cases, the signing statements trumped the clear direction of the Supreme Court and Congress.

The Senate is delaying activity on a bill backed by its Judiciary Committee chairman, who wants this basic threat slowed:

"If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like," said [Arlen] Specter, "he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers."

The effort would at least begin to allow some court supervision.

Curiously, the bill does not go far enough. In essense, it allows the courts to review the signing statements, but it still allows the president to continue offering signing statements that restrict the executive branch departments regardless of Congress' intent with the law. This is akin to saying the President can do whatever the hell he wants, but Congress wants to reserve the right to ask the courts to look it over. A much better idea would be to strip all signing statements of any interpretive power. As we remember from civics classes:
-- Congress creates and passes the law
-- The president follows the law
-- The courts interpret the law

Even if Specter's bill passes, this system still isn't restored.

In introducing the bill, Specter said he was trying to restore the system of checks-and-balances with the separation of powers:

The Founders had good reason for constructing the legislative process as it is: by creating a bicameral legislature and then granting the President the veto power. According to The Records of the Constitutional Convention, the veto power was designed by our Framers to protect citizens from a particular Congress that might enact oppressive legislation. However, the Framers did not want the veto power to be unchecked, and so, in article I, section 7, they balanced it by allowing Congress to override a veto by two-thirds vote.
As you can see, this is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the President that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the President is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our Framers.

Hear, hear.