Tuesday, July 25, 2006 | 7:46 a.m.
President Bush has vetoed only one bill since he took office, but this is not because of any strong belief that the will of Congress is sacrosanct. Rather, he recognizes that veto power is vulnerable to Congress' override power.
So instead of vetoing bills he disagrees with, Bush has been signing them - but not before attaching statements declaring his own interpretation of the new laws.
While presidents have attached signing statements to bills before, Bush has raised the practice to an unprecedented level. He has attached more than any president in recent history, and his tone has become imperial.
When he signed a bill in December outlawing the torture of terrorism suspects, for example, he included a statement that said his presidential powers give him discretion in how and when the law will be enforced.
We have previously criticized the president for his almost wanton use of signing statements. Our view is that he should veto any bill he disagrees with and respect the wishes of Congress if it overrides the veto. That's what the Constitution calls for.
On Monday a bipartisan task force assembled by the American Bar Association issued a report containing the same view. The Washington Post quoted the president of the ABA, Michael S. Greco, as saying, "The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills. We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue ... is left unchecked."
The report, which will be discussed by the full ABA next month, says Congress should require court review of signing statements, as a check on presidential power. We agree. Otherwise a president, as Bush has demonstrated, is free to declare that his administration is above the law.
archive
