American Government 101
The commentary flying around about Presidential Signing Statements has gotten me thinking recently about the form of government set forth in our Constitution.
Painting with a very broad brush, our Federal Government is divided into three branches, each with a specific area of responsibilty, and each with checks on the power of the other two branches.
- Executive: its responsibility is to enforce the law. The President has veto power, and the power to appoint Jurists. The "mundane" workings of the burocracy also tend to balance the power of the other branches as well.
- Legislative: its responsibilty is to write the laws. Congress can override a veto, and creates the courts and determines thier jurisdiction. It also determines funding for all branches, and oversees the operations.
- Judicial: its responsibility is to interpret the laws. The courts can decalre a law unconstitutional and determine how a law is to be enforced.
The issue is not as simple as it seems, but "Signing Statements" are supposedly an attempt to sway the Judicial branch when it considers the intent of a law. Sort of a pre-argument.
Such Statements, however, are a usurpation of the Judicial responsibility. The President's stated understanding, unlike Congress' stated intent, is immaterial to the interpretation of a law.
Worse, our current President has amassed a history of using bureaucratic tactics to interpret laws (by re-defining terminology, among other means) and writing or disregarding laws by executive order. His use of Signing Statements seems to be an extension of these practices.
I think this is classic malfeasance.
Advertisement
Remember, after the impeachment, the talking heads saying that we were entering a period of diminished presidential power, in which the executive branch would play a modest function, as it did for much of the 19th Century? (I think that's Michael Besschloss, at least). Ah, who knew what happy prognostications those would turn out to be!
January 19, 2006 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink