ABA: Bush Unconstitutional

August 8 was a good day for America. It went under the radar, but the American Bar Association's 550-member House of Delegates – the policy-making body that represents 400,000 ABA members (and includes true conservatives) – voted that it "opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the misuse of presidential signing statements by claiming the authority… to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the president has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress."

The delegates endorsed the unanimous findings of a bipartisan task force which had decried George Bush's use of signing statements "as an unconstitutional power grab." Bush has issued more than 800 challenges (more than all previous presidents combined) to provisions of passed laws, including whistleblower protection, protection of federally funded research from political interference, and the ban on torture.

This is an important step forward by a bipartisan, establishment institution. It signals widespread support for reining in an Executive branch run amok that imperils our Republic. This administration has demeaned our democracy. It's high time to follow the lead of the ABA. Demand that every candidate for office this November commit to repairing the damage done to our system of checks and balances by the Bush administration.

Comments (31)

1. This is an important issue...but not outside the ABA or here.

   Sorry, but in the world of retail politics (House) or state politics (Senate)...this is going to rank about #18 after Iraq, terrorism, the deficit, "culture of corruption", jobs, minimum wage, etc., etc.

   "Demand that every candidate for office this November commit to repairing the damage done to our system of checks and balances by the Bush administration."???

   Come on...do you really see that happening outside of ONE town hall meeting in Ohio or Washington State from ONE guy in the back with a greying ponytail?

   Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 1:40pm

2. This is an important issue, but only if Democrats stop pulling punches and advocate the impeachment of Bush & Cheney for treason. Deliberately violating the laws of the United States is not a fringe issue nor a legal technicality - it's part of a larger betrayal of America.

   Posted by samcrossett at 08/15/2006 @ 1:58pm

3. OOOO! The ABA! I guess this means...what does this mean? NOTHING!!!

   Posted by woodyee at 08/15/2006 @ 2:03pm

4. For those who do not understand the import of this vote/finding, please recognize that the ABA consists of those that write and analyze laws (attorneys).

   Furthermore, "signing statements" as used by many Administrations, but this one in particular, are a method by which the Executive branch circumvents the "original intent" (a philosophy so loved by Scalia and Thomas) of the Constitution.

   If the Executive branch disagrees with a law, or any law bundled among many laws within a bill, the Executive should veto the entire Bill and send it back to Congress for further debate. Using "signing statements", as they are used now, allows an Executive a "line-item veto" thereby rendering the power of Congress to write and pass laws a meaningless exercise and vesting the Executive with limitless powers.

   The exploitation of "signing statements" is part of the "Unitary presidency" that has been propounded by those who follow the Federalist Society's philosophy. It is a philosophy that has just grown to fruition in this country but whose seed was planted with the very first recognition of an Emperor, King, and/or Supreme leader.

   This is an important matter. It should not be discounted nor should it be ridiculed and those who have challenged it should be applauded. They are looking out for you and the thing that has been so soiled of late, namely, the beautiful Constitution to which any man or woman should thank for their right to read this, comment on it, and/or simply ignore it while others do the heavy lifting.

   Posted by AmeriPundit at 08/15/2006 @ 2:04pm

5. Conservatives now hate the ABA, say its just an irrelevant group.

   Posted by LiberalPride at 08/15/2006 @ 2:11pm

6. Also, don't forget that trial lawyers are one of the largest pools of money outside of the corporate sector proper.

   JRE rode that to the VP nomination and half victory (on the ballot side, though not on the counting side, which carries the day when there is a split decision) in 2004.

   Posted by BruceMcF at 08/15/2006 @ 2:11pm

7. "... if Democrats stop pulling punches and advocate the impeachment of Bush & Cheney for treason."

   Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/15/2006 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person

   Slightly quicker and less painful....cyanide in pill form. Howard Dean could distribute them to the incoming Democrats on January 3rd.

   Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 2:29pm

8. Egads, I'm agreeing with *GASP* lawyers! Think I better surf over and get the weather forecast for Hell...apparently there's a cold front coming in.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 08/15/2006 @ 2:38pm

9. MASK's comments present a new low in his career as ... umm, whatever it is that he envision himself as being (pooper ... without a party?). At least he's marginally tiolet-trained, in contrast with some of his fellow travellors.

   Of course, every issue has to be explained and framed, as issues don't generally "speak for themselves". But the signing statements are clearly of a piece with an outrageous power grab by an out-of-touch and out-of-control brat bent on lowering the nation's standards and with tin-horn pretensions of operating a Politburo when he has not the capacity to run a popsicle stand. There is substance to framing the trashing of the law as an arrogant abuse in defiance of our long-established democratic laws and traditions by a priviledged, insulated and entitled sub-mediocrity; this, in contrast with RepubliClown's "explaining" and "framing" that has been constructed from whole cloth without points of correspondence in the material plane of existence (for ex., Gore is shifty because he - GASP! - mis-spoke on the number of chairs in a Florida classroom !!!).

   So let it rip, as SAM has admirably done in crisp language.

   Let's also remember that when an elite figure starts screwing other elites and institutions with a measure of power (say, Nixon or Somoza at about the same time), the other elites get the proverbial knifes out.

   As for the insufferable and useless no-mind MORNING-WOOD: He simply illustrates that conservaClowns are defined as people who set abysmally low standards for themselves --- and then fail to meet those standards, all the while defensively/defiantly waving their fists after hatching fecal, sub-literate insights as MORNING-WOOD does on cue.

   Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/15/2006 @ 2:52pm

10. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/15/2006 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person

    Yes, GLENN....cuz when Joe and Jane Average American are looking for important issues and actions from the Democratic Party...

    they skip right over jobs, health care, their kids' schools, gas prices, Joe Jr. fighting in Iraq, mortgage rates, even the "unseasonably hot weather"...

    and will DEMAND action on a lame-duck President and "signing statements" and before all else throwing him out of office A YEAR EARLY...so that Dick Cheney can become President...so that the Left can feel like they've gotten "justice" for the last 6 years!

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 3:14pm

11. Mask

    I dont think any REASONABLE progressive advocates the impeachment of Bush. It would take the removal of the VEEP as well, and several others down the line to make any real difference. However, this administrations use of signing statements..............which is what the thread was about I might remind you............has been completely ridiculous. Furthermore, for the apologists on this site to just dismiss this further illustrates that they dont think before they speak.

    Who should look into this abuse of signing statements........a GOP task force? Lawyers and those involved in the judicial are the right folks.........legal scholars are precisely the group to handle this matter. I'm not stating that it is the most troubling thing going on in our country right now, but it is this kind of mentality that BushCo. exhibits, and it should be stopped. Nowhere in our constitution does it state that the executive has the right to circumvent the law in this fashion, and since GWB has turned the "signing statement" into his personal get out of jail free or disclaimer card..........this needs to be addressed. Imagine if the next democratic president used power in this fashion..........dont tell me the righties wouldnt be hollering about it. Signing statements were never intended for this purpose, and it's time to reign in this administrations lack of respect for the law. Besides.......isnt this the same administration who promotes "freedom" and "democracy"...........why so much trouble with following rules?

    Posted by jpolston at 08/15/2006 @ 3:47pm

12. I dont think any REASONABLE progressive advocates the impeachment of Bush.

    Posted by JPOLSTON 08/15/2006 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person

    Then your fight is apparently with SAMCROSETT and GLENN LEMON.

    That's all I was saying too!

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 4:12pm

13. GLENN LEMON - C'mon; can't you do better than that?

    Posted by woodyee at 08/15/2006 @ 4:13pm

14. Posted by MASK 08/15/2006 @ 3:14pm: Yes, GLENN....cuz when Joe and Jane Average American are looking for important issues and actions from the Democratic Party...

    Z, do you really think that presidential politics is the only prism through which to view reality?

    and will DEMAND action on a lame-duck President and "signing statements" and before all else throwing him out of office A YEAR EARLY

    The ABA is not demanding the impeachment of Dear Leader. Your comment is a non-sequitur.

    Why don't you actually take some time to learn a little about what you are talking about rather than racing to be the first-to-post?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/15/2006 @ 4:16pm

15. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/15/2006 @ 3:36pm:

    Hey, its the scared little boy.

    Hi scared little boy.

    So, you hate the Constitution?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/15/2006 @ 4:18pm

16. No doubt it is true, as pointed out by JPolston, that the impeachment of Bush would not in itself result in regime change. Nixon and Agnew never suffered any consequences, not even forcible removal from their offices, but they were finally exposed, and the people had the opportunity to learn the truth. Even those who aren't in favor of impeachment should be in favor of a public & uncensored investigation into 9/11: who paid for the training camps, who armed the Taliban, what the detainees know, what is contained within the 28 censored pages of the congressional 9/11 report, what the FBI learned before Bush closed down their investigation, what Bush is covering up with his illegal use of 'national security' secrecy, etc.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/15/2006 @ 4:33pm

17. "... if Democrats stop pulling punches and advocate the impeachment of Bush & Cheney for treason."

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/15/2006 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person

    "No doubt it is true, as pointed out by JPolston, that the impeachment of Bush would not in itself result in regime change."

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/15/2006 @ 4:33pm | ignore this person

    SAM, why are you favoring it then??? You think it's going to lead to a "massive rebuke of the entire Republican Party"?

    As you noted with Nixon/Agnew...one Carter term later, and they rebounded quite nicely for a dozen years!

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2006 @ 4:41pm

18. Do I think that impeaching or merely exposing Bush & Cheney will lead to a massive rebuke of the entire Republican party? If history (e.g. Nixon & Agnew) is any guide, it will lead to Republicans who supported Bush pretending not to have known anything about his cover-up of the Saudi sponsorship of 9/11, pretending not to have known anything about his falsification of intelligence about Iraq, pretending not to have known anything about his war crimes, in short, denying Bush like Peter denying Jesus.

    In other words, the impeachment of Bush & Cheney or even the exposure of their crimes will lead to a massive repudiation of Bush - by Republicans. The next leader of the Republicans will most likely be Bush's arch-rival, McCain, or one of his disaffected lieutenants, like Powell. Repubs are already distancing themselves from Bush - not inviting him to speak on their behalf, removing his image from their literature and websites etc.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/15/2006 @ 5:17pm

19. Posted by MASK 08/15/2006 @ 3:14pm and will DEMAND action on a lame-duck President and "signing statements" and before all else throwing him out of office A YEAR EARLY...so that Dick Cheney can become President...so that the Left can feel like they've gotten "justice" for the last 6 years!

    That's not needed ... if can, after all, be taken to the SCOTUS.

    In a classic "bit the hand that chose them" move, it would not be surprising if the SCOTUS decided that it and it alone gets to which parts of an act of congress do have to be followed, and which parts do not.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/15/2006 @ 6:50pm

20. Posted by MASK 08/15/2006 @ 4:41pm As you noted with Nixon/Agnew...one Carter term later, and they rebounded quite nicely for a dozen years!

    I seem to recall the Iran-hostage crisis having something to do with the election of the guy for the first eight of those twelve years ... and do not recall the Republican majority both chambers to accompany it ...

    Wait, what's that? The Senate Majority lasted 6 years, and a House Majority never arrived during the entire 12 year period? Oh, that explains why the WH was cited to provide a 12-year period of Republican dominance and the Congress ignored. The Iran-hostage Republican Senate Majority was lost in the year that those Senators fronted for their next election.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/15/2006 @ 7:04pm

21. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/15/2006 @ 5:17pm In other words, the impeachment of Bush & Cheney or even the exposure of their crimes will lead to a massive repudiation of Bush - by Republicans.

    And this would be a good thing. The damage that the Rove/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld regime is doing to the Republic transcends partisan politics.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/15/2006 @ 7:07pm

22. What Rio and Barry seem to ignore is that Bush is setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents (Republican or Democrat). I bet when the shoe is on the other foot, they might take issue. Just a hunch.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/15/2006 @ 8:20pm

23. Nixon wouldnt be impeached, but when the investigations got underway, his own party got off the sinking ship & sold him out

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/15/2006 @ 8:31pm

24. This is an important issue...but not outside the ABA or here.

    Sorry, but in the world of retail politics (House) or state politics (Senate)...this is going to rank about #18 after Iraq, terrorism, the deficit, "culture of corruption", jobs, minimum wage, etc., etc.

    Posted by MASK 08/15/2006 @ 1:40pm

    Uh...Mask, perhaps folks who don't sit around the house, waiting to be first to post on The Nation, spending all their time trying to twist a new spin on ANYTHING written, have interests and priorities that go beyond how things affect partisan politics and the parties.

    Some of us care about the future of our republic. My children will toil endlessly to pay this generations debt. Perhaps, they could be free to live in the constitutional republic that we are trashing with our bewildering disinterest, utter ignorance and partisan bullshit posturing.

    Allow me to rephrase the only salient point of your post, the way it should be;

    This is an important issue!

    Regardless of your political stripe.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/15/2006 @ 8:47pm

25. I must admire that Mask has come out and said that the current administration has created such a crisis in confidence and such a wildfire of incompetence buffoonery and avarice that simply running roughshod over the Constitution and the laws of this great country is only heinous enough to barely squeak into the Top Twenty.

    Posted by cyrano at 08/15/2006 @ 11:57pm

26. Posted by BRUCEMCF 08/15/2006 @ 7:04pm | ignore this person

    BRUCE did 12 years of Reagan/Bush-41 not matter?!??!?

    or the fact that post-Nixon, the term "liberal" became anathema to a large majority of the voting public?

    SAM seems to think "impeaching Bush and Cheney" (Still hasnt explained how that happens SIMULTANEOUSLY) will lead to the downfall of the Republican Party.

    Last time we had an impeachment...THAT almost led to the downfall of the Republican Party and losses in the 1998 midterms....but it wasn't of a Republican President.

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2006 @ 09:03am

27. To the rest....after November, George Bush will have 26 months left in office. The Democratic House (yep, my prediction again) will have 2 choices....and ONLY two choices to make-

    1. Go after Bush in endless investigations trying to get up a bill or BILLS of impeachment to take him out and drag the country through an impeachment trial lasting MUCH longer than the Clinton one did...and at the end of the day, Bush removed or not....PRESIDENT Dick Cheney and a record going into 2008 of NO accomplishments legislatively.

    or 2. An attempt to show they can GOVERN and do things for the American people, and secure 2008 and beyond.

    One satisfies a Bush-hating base that has been talking of impeachment since 2002....the other choice....satisfies the OTHER 90% of the country.

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2006 @ 09:07am

28. Mask, good points all around. No, it isn't possible to impeach Bush & Cheney simultaneously; one or the other will continue to impede any efforts by the Democratic Congress to govern.

    Impeachment, moreover, requires a 2/3 majority, the same majority required to override the vetoes of either Bush or Cheney when they endeavor to obstruct the efforts of the Democratic Congress to govern.

    Can anything be accomplished with a simple majority, then? Certainly; just recall how the Gingrich majority shut down the government in an attempt to raise taxes on the workers and cut Medicare for retired workers. And it didn't take a 2/3 majority to hamstring President Clinton's foreign policy in the Balkans at a time when U.S. forces were in harm's way. Of course, when the Democrats refuse to fund the chickenhawks' war without a thorough investigation of war profiteering by Bush and his cronies, the Repubs will holler "treason!" Ditto for a thorough investigation of 9/11, the Plame affair, the falsification of Iraq intelligence, the torture of prisoners of war and U.S. citizens, etc. It's true as you say that the investigations into Bush's and Cheney's impeachable offenses will be endless - the offenses are so numerous.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/16/2006 @ 09:56am

29. It's true as you say that the investigations into Bush's and Cheney's impeachable offenses will be endless - the offenses are so numerous.

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/16/2006 @ 09:56am | ignore this person

    And I got no problem with that, SAM. Embaress the hell out of Bush-Cheney.

    But talk of "impeachment" is self-defeating and puts Dems on the defensive going into the fall. Every time Pelosi or Reid have to go out and DENY that "The first thing they'll do as the majority is go after Bush and get him thrown out of office" (based on what the Blogosphere is fantasizing over)....they lose moderate and indy voters.

    And NOBODY has painted a picture whereby Cheney gets "simultaneously impeached" (likely it's not Constitutional...and the John Roberts USSC will likely rule that way)....so all that happens again is Bush leaves, Cheney appoints some moderate Repub from Congress that Pelosi can't object to, and we rap up 2007 with nothing done by the Dems.

    Plus in the meantime, Fox and Limbaugh have painted Bush as the "victim of a partisan Congress driven by their Fringe Base" (as Carvile and Begala did of the GOP in 1999-2000).

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2006 @ 10:24am

30. Posted by MASK 08/16/2006 @ 09:03am: or the fact that post-Nixon, the term "liberal" became anathema to a large majority of the voting public?

    Really? But you claim Gore is a liberal. And he got more votes than his opponent, ol' whatshisname.

    And you claim Kerry is a liberal. And he got nearly 50 percent of the vote.

    So how could it be a "fact" that the term "liberal" is anathema to a large majority of the voting public?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/16/2006 @ 10:27am

31. The best-approach would have been to take Bush on in 2002-2003, inundating-him with lawsuits from every-imaginable-direction. This ABA-statement might be too-late. http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/

    Posted by Dr. Mabuse at 08/16/2006 @ 3:59pm