Playing “Good Cop, Bad Cop” with the Constitution
Updated on June 28, 2006 at 2:58 pm.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is balking again. This time he’s deeply concerned about the disclaimer language the President frequently appends to bills before signing them, the gist of which is “It is with great pride that I sign this bill into law which applies to everyone except me“:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings today on the signing statements. Bush has used the statements on some 750 statutes passed by Congress, including such high-profile issues as a ban on torture and renewal of the Patriot Act.
* * *
A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law.
However, according to the White House, a law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., demanded a hearing on the practice he considers an example of the administrations abuse of power.
It’s a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. I’m interested to hear from the administration just what research they’ve done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.
* * *
In his presidency’s sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.
Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.
In case you haven’t noticed, Senator Specter does a lot of balking these days. Balking allows him to maintain an air of concern about the administration’s incursions against the Constitution and Americans’ civil liberties without actually doing anything to defend the Constitution and Americans’ civil liberties.
He balked at the administration’s warrantless domestic surveillance program and has since been “pressing the Bush administration to seek clearance from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, court.” If he keeps at it, the administration might just agree to follow the federal statute it has ignored for the past five years. You know, that 1978 statute that requires the administration to seek clearance from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, court when conducting such surveillance. That one.
He balked at the administration’s massive NSA data mining operation, but backed down when the Vice President “promised that the Bush administration would consider legislation proposed by Specter that would place a domestic surveillance program under scrutiny of a special federal court.”
Oh, no you di-in’t! You made him promise to consider legislation? Man, that’s hard core. What did you say?
Well, I got all up on him, an’ I was like, “Put down the Sharpie an’ back away from the Constitution, Mr. Vice President. Don’t make me balk. Oh, I’ll balk. Don’t think I won’t balk. I’m a crazy motherbalker.” Like that. An’ he was all like, “Chill, dude. I’ll consider it. I swear.” Like that.
Word.
UPDATE: Remarkably, Jack Cafferty still does not own CNN.
One Response to “Playing “Good Cop, Bad Cop” with the Constitution”
I love how the subtitle of Slate’s article on the pheonomenon is “The presidential equivalent of finger-crossing.” When all else fails, revert to kids’ argument techniques.
Comment by Dara on June 28, 2006 at 3:43 pm.