Signing Statements vs Vetoes

Mr. Bush's relations with Congress has been tumultuous at best and complete control at worst. When a Republican led congress passed a ban on torture in the Detainee Treatment Act and attached it as a amendment to the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 he signed the law with a signing statement. Now the Democrats are in control threatening even tighter controls on the war in Iraq and he is again threatening a veto and this time he will carry it out.

Mr. Bush's one veto during the Republican led Congress was the stem cell research bill. The others, including a pork-laden transportation bill and a defense supplemental with the Real ID Act attached, he signed. He also threatened a veto of the Defense bill in 2005 because of a the Detainee Treatment Act, but signed it and then with little fanfare promulgated a signing statement that said:

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 and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

Pulitzer Prize Winner Charlie Savage reported in the 5 January 2006 edition of the Boston Globe that 3 GOP senators blast Bush bid to bypass torture ban which quotes Sen. Graham as saying:

I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified Graham. If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same.

The article provides a statement from the other two, McCain and Warner. So to claim that they caved in and allowed torture to become official policy is unfair and incorrect.

Now on to vetoes. The president as above mentioned only vetoed one bill in the Republican congresses even though he threatened several times to veto bills. He signed larded bills, bills with unrelated provisions attached, and those that included things he did not like. A signing statement was his answer then and now he is going to return to the Constitutional option of vetoing. This may be proof that his preferred method of dealing with his own party when they get out of line.

It is just stubbornness. If he really believes that it is his power to clearly disobey the will of congress then he should sign the supplemental and attach a signing statement.

I do not support this action, but he won't because he wants to make a political issue out of the supplemental and he wasn't willing to do that.