President Bush has now used the tactic of “signing statements” 750 times. (Source: Boston Globe) A relatively rare tactic called the signing statement provides the President with the ability to offer nuance or pushbacks on legislation he signs into law. This rare tactic had only been used just over a dozen times in the history of the country until the 1980’s. Ronald Reagon used the signing statement to challenge 71 legislative provisions. Clinton used the tactic 105 times. So far, George Bush has used the tactic around 750 times!
It’s no accident that this practice became more widespread in the 1980’s. And just who came up with using this obscure method of challenging legislation in the 1980’s. Why, none other than Samuel Alito.
In a February 1986 draft memo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito laid out a case for the President to routinely issue “statements” about the meaning of statutes which he signs into law. (Source: WaPo)
###
From WaPo:
Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."
"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."
###
No case illustrated just how pervasive the Bush administration has become with the usage of signing statements than the recent McCain Anti-Torture Bill signed into law. In signing the McCain Anti-Torture legislation into law, the President in effect said never mind or this doesn’t apply to me. Although the legislation was crystal clear in its meaning and intent, the president’s signing statement went on to read “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” Translation – If the President feels torture is warranted to protect the country he will violate the law and use torture. If the courts try to stop him he’ll ignore them too.
By using the tactic of a signing statement, Bush disallows Congress the opportunity to overturn a veto. In fact the last President to stay in office this long without issuing a veto was Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Bush is using the tactic of signing statements as if they were a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. (Source: FindLaw)
###
The Boston Globe gives us some examples of Bush’s signing statements and just how they changed the intended legislation.
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
###
Hasn’t President Bush declared himself the sole judge of his own powers? Doesn’t this eliminate the checks and balances that keep our country a democracy? Isn’t this moving the country toward unlimited executive power?
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Friday, April 07, 2006
Conservative Democrats
Conservative Democrats
Perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of politics is the existence of the conservative Democrat. The GOP has successfully portrayed the Democratic Party through the thoughts and actions of the more liberal members of the party. And in some instances the Democratic Party did little to challenge that notion. My purpose is to draw attention to moderate and conservative wing of the Party.
The election of 2006 will find the Democratic Party being sampled by more recent GOP and independent voters than in other recent election cycles. Those disenfranchised right-leaning voters must find some reason to vote democratic, other than the standard “throw the bums out” line that is tossed out so often.
*****
Right Democrat is “…the voice of Democrats who believe in social conservatism and economic populism. This site is dedicated to revitalizing the moderate-conservative wing of our party.”
Immigration is a “hot topic” on the site, and the current article quotes the late, great Barbara Jordan of Texas who chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform: “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." Their mantra on the subject is “the right is right on immigration reform.” The site goes on to say: "When George Bush and Howard Dean are on the same page, you know that someone powerful is running the political printing press. And that is: corporations.”
Another essay on the site focuses on Former South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings’ thoughts on fair trade. Hollings retired from the Senate after a 38 year service record (see Parting Shots from Fritz Hollings.)
Right Democrat:
Hollings writes: "First, we need to stop financing the elimination of jobs. Tax benefits for offshore production must end. Royalty deductions allowed for offshore activities must be eliminated, and offshore tax havens must be closed down.
Next, we need an assistant attorney general to enforce our trade laws and agreements. Currently, enforcement is left to the injured party. It takes corporate America years to jump the legal hurdles. At the end, the president, under his authority for the nation’s security, cancels the court order against the trade violation.
Rather than waste time and money, corporate America moves offshore. Trade policy is set by a dozen departments and agencies. Policy should be reconstituted in a Department of Trade and Commerce with the secretary acting as a czar. Then trade treaties can be negotiated for the good of the U.S. economy, instead of for the good of the transnational. The department’s International Trade Administration, finding a dumping violation, should also determine the penalty.
The International Trade Commission should be eliminated. Custom agents charged with drug enforcement and homeland security are hard-pressed to stop trade transshipments. We need 1,000 more Customs agents.
We need more funding for research in physical and mathematical sciences and engineering; more funding for the Manufactures Extension Partnership Act and the Advanced Technology Program. The list of materials critical to our national defense should be enforced. H1-B Visas should be repealed, and the United States should give notice of withdrawal from the World Trade Organization."
Hollings goes on to blast the closed markets of Japan, South Korea and China. The Right Democrat is a “must-read” for any conservative – republican or democrat.
If we go back in history, many people point to 1964 as the time in which the conservative wing of the GOP became the dominant voice of that party, and the liberal wing becoming the dominant voice of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure that I agree totally, and in fact I believe it was a more gradual shift until 1980. Unlike some people, I find that Nixon was more of a progressive with his domestic policy than some people credit him for. And I believe Reagon became the galvanizing factor for this shift. We all have our opinions.
Another interesting subject for conservatives is the “Blue Dog Coalition,” a group of 35 moderate to conservative Democrats, including: Rep. Joe Baca (CA), Rep. John Barrow (GA), Rep. Marion Berry (AR), Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA), Rep. Dan Boren (OK), Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA), Rep. Allen Boyd (FL), Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA), Rep. Ed Case (HI), Rep. Ben Chandler (KY), Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), Rep. Jim Costa (CA), Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer (AL), Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN), Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN), Rep. Jane Harman (CA), Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD), Rep. Tim Holden (PA), Rep. Steve Israel (NY), Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC), Rep. Jim Matheson (UT), Rep. Charles Melancon (LA), Rep. Mike Michaud (ME), Rep. Dennis Moore (KS), Rep. Collin Peterson (MN), Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND), Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Rep. John Salazar (CO), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), Rep. David Scott (GA), Rep. John Tanner (TN), Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA), Rep. Gene Taylor (MS), Rep Mike Thompson (CA).
Most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups, which cannot be said for most members of the DLC. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.
Following the brief rise and fall of Lyndon LaRouche inside the Democratic Party in the 1980’s, more conservative democrats entered the playing field, including Joe Lieberman, CO Governor Richard Lamm, and MN Senator Eugene McCarthy. Former California Governor Jerry Brown would embrace the “flat tax” as the core of his unsuccessful 1992 presidential compaign. Bill Clinton distanced himself from the liberal wing of the party in his 1992 presidential campaign.
Democrats for Life is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party. Their mission, “to foster respect for life, from the beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Democrats for Life of America is one of over 200 member organizations of Consistent Life: an international network for peace, justice and life.”
The Democratic Freedom Caucus is a “progressive, pro-freedom caucus, which promotes the values which the Democratic Party was founded upon: individual liberty, constitutional democracy, and social responsibility.” They “support the Bill of Rights, which describes what is meant by individual liberty and constitutional limits on government.” It is a caucus within the Democratic Party which seeks to return the party to it’s Jerffersonian roots of individual liberty, constitutional democracy, civil liberties, and opposition to corporate welfare and special interests. The DFC has been especially vocal in supporting Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
The Pew Research Center estimates that 15% of the electorate are conservative democrats. The left-wing of the Democratic Party liberally applies the term “Democrats in Name Only” to the Blue Dogs, the DFC and DFL. But I would argie that the conservative democrats are actually the true heirs to FDR’s New Deal Coalition.
In closing I would like to point out another group within the Democratic Party that conservatives might feel comfortable, the Amendment 2 Democrats. From their site: “Today, Amendment II Democrats pledges itself to helping take back America from the Republican Party and giving it back to the people. We will settle for nothing less than a Democratic House and Senate in 2006. And, at the same time, there is a golden opportunity for pro-RKBA Democrats to dramatically change firearms policy within the Democratic Party itself from the ground up. All we have to do is join together, stand up on our hind legs, and exercise our First Amendment rights if we want any hope of affecting real change within the party of Jefferson, Kennedy, and F.D. Roosevelt.”
The Democratic Party is actually more of a Big Tent than many conservatives within the GOP have given it credit for. It was the GOP that painted the Democratic Party as liberal. It will be up to YOU to determine if that was accurate.
Perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of politics is the existence of the conservative Democrat. The GOP has successfully portrayed the Democratic Party through the thoughts and actions of the more liberal members of the party. And in some instances the Democratic Party did little to challenge that notion. My purpose is to draw attention to moderate and conservative wing of the Party.
The election of 2006 will find the Democratic Party being sampled by more recent GOP and independent voters than in other recent election cycles. Those disenfranchised right-leaning voters must find some reason to vote democratic, other than the standard “throw the bums out” line that is tossed out so often.
*****
Right Democrat is “…the voice of Democrats who believe in social conservatism and economic populism. This site is dedicated to revitalizing the moderate-conservative wing of our party.”
Immigration is a “hot topic” on the site, and the current article quotes the late, great Barbara Jordan of Texas who chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform: “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." Their mantra on the subject is “the right is right on immigration reform.” The site goes on to say: "When George Bush and Howard Dean are on the same page, you know that someone powerful is running the political printing press. And that is: corporations.”
Another essay on the site focuses on Former South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings’ thoughts on fair trade. Hollings retired from the Senate after a 38 year service record (see Parting Shots from Fritz Hollings.)
Right Democrat:
Hollings writes: "First, we need to stop financing the elimination of jobs. Tax benefits for offshore production must end. Royalty deductions allowed for offshore activities must be eliminated, and offshore tax havens must be closed down.
Next, we need an assistant attorney general to enforce our trade laws and agreements. Currently, enforcement is left to the injured party. It takes corporate America years to jump the legal hurdles. At the end, the president, under his authority for the nation’s security, cancels the court order against the trade violation.
Rather than waste time and money, corporate America moves offshore. Trade policy is set by a dozen departments and agencies. Policy should be reconstituted in a Department of Trade and Commerce with the secretary acting as a czar. Then trade treaties can be negotiated for the good of the U.S. economy, instead of for the good of the transnational. The department’s International Trade Administration, finding a dumping violation, should also determine the penalty.
The International Trade Commission should be eliminated. Custom agents charged with drug enforcement and homeland security are hard-pressed to stop trade transshipments. We need 1,000 more Customs agents.
We need more funding for research in physical and mathematical sciences and engineering; more funding for the Manufactures Extension Partnership Act and the Advanced Technology Program. The list of materials critical to our national defense should be enforced. H1-B Visas should be repealed, and the United States should give notice of withdrawal from the World Trade Organization."
Hollings goes on to blast the closed markets of Japan, South Korea and China. The Right Democrat is a “must-read” for any conservative – republican or democrat.
If we go back in history, many people point to 1964 as the time in which the conservative wing of the GOP became the dominant voice of that party, and the liberal wing becoming the dominant voice of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure that I agree totally, and in fact I believe it was a more gradual shift until 1980. Unlike some people, I find that Nixon was more of a progressive with his domestic policy than some people credit him for. And I believe Reagon became the galvanizing factor for this shift. We all have our opinions.
Another interesting subject for conservatives is the “Blue Dog Coalition,” a group of 35 moderate to conservative Democrats, including: Rep. Joe Baca (CA), Rep. John Barrow (GA), Rep. Marion Berry (AR), Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA), Rep. Dan Boren (OK), Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA), Rep. Allen Boyd (FL), Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA), Rep. Ed Case (HI), Rep. Ben Chandler (KY), Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), Rep. Jim Costa (CA), Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer (AL), Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN), Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN), Rep. Jane Harman (CA), Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD), Rep. Tim Holden (PA), Rep. Steve Israel (NY), Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC), Rep. Jim Matheson (UT), Rep. Charles Melancon (LA), Rep. Mike Michaud (ME), Rep. Dennis Moore (KS), Rep. Collin Peterson (MN), Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND), Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Rep. John Salazar (CO), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), Rep. David Scott (GA), Rep. John Tanner (TN), Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA), Rep. Gene Taylor (MS), Rep Mike Thompson (CA).
Most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups, which cannot be said for most members of the DLC. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.
Following the brief rise and fall of Lyndon LaRouche inside the Democratic Party in the 1980’s, more conservative democrats entered the playing field, including Joe Lieberman, CO Governor Richard Lamm, and MN Senator Eugene McCarthy. Former California Governor Jerry Brown would embrace the “flat tax” as the core of his unsuccessful 1992 presidential compaign. Bill Clinton distanced himself from the liberal wing of the party in his 1992 presidential campaign.
Democrats for Life is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party. Their mission, “to foster respect for life, from the beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Democrats for Life of America is one of over 200 member organizations of Consistent Life: an international network for peace, justice and life.”
The Democratic Freedom Caucus is a “progressive, pro-freedom caucus, which promotes the values which the Democratic Party was founded upon: individual liberty, constitutional democracy, and social responsibility.” They “support the Bill of Rights, which describes what is meant by individual liberty and constitutional limits on government.” It is a caucus within the Democratic Party which seeks to return the party to it’s Jerffersonian roots of individual liberty, constitutional democracy, civil liberties, and opposition to corporate welfare and special interests. The DFC has been especially vocal in supporting Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
The Pew Research Center estimates that 15% of the electorate are conservative democrats. The left-wing of the Democratic Party liberally applies the term “Democrats in Name Only” to the Blue Dogs, the DFC and DFL. But I would argie that the conservative democrats are actually the true heirs to FDR’s New Deal Coalition.
In closing I would like to point out another group within the Democratic Party that conservatives might feel comfortable, the Amendment 2 Democrats. From their site: “Today, Amendment II Democrats pledges itself to helping take back America from the Republican Party and giving it back to the people. We will settle for nothing less than a Democratic House and Senate in 2006. And, at the same time, there is a golden opportunity for pro-RKBA Democrats to dramatically change firearms policy within the Democratic Party itself from the ground up. All we have to do is join together, stand up on our hind legs, and exercise our First Amendment rights if we want any hope of affecting real change within the party of Jefferson, Kennedy, and F.D. Roosevelt.”
The Democratic Party is actually more of a Big Tent than many conservatives within the GOP have given it credit for. It was the GOP that painted the Democratic Party as liberal. It will be up to YOU to determine if that was accurate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)