RK ARCHIVE - Will Bush veto the House passed War Bill?

I'm not certain that Bush will veto this bill. Most commentators seem to assume that Bush only has two choices: veto the bill, or accept the withdrawal date. But there is another possibility, one which I think is highly likely, given Bush's history. He could sign the bill, and issue another of his famous "signing statements."

Some sources say that Bush has already used signing statements over 750 times, all in an effort (often successful, I might add) to nullify what he views as illegal restrictions on his power. Wouldn't it make more sense, from Bush's point of view, to issue a signing statement rather than veto the bill? There seem to be several advantages for him. First, it would irritate and infuriate the Democrats, which is something Bush seems to enjoy (think of how he always calls them the "Democrat Party," just to irritate them). Second, he would not have to veto legislation, which he seems loath to do. Finally, he could avoid a public fight which he might lose.

Comments

Bush Veto (RPF - 4/26/2007 9:55:40 AM)

I think that Gustavus is absolutely correct. The hallmark of the Bush presidency is the so-called "unitary executive theory" which holds that although there are three co-equal branches of the federal government, no other branch can take any action that impinges upon what, in the view of the unitary theorists, is within the ambit of the executive's power (for example, legislative constraints upon what the president does as Commander-in-Chief). Bush has, as Gustavus rightly points out, used the methodology of the 'signing statement' hundreds of times to nullify portions of a Bill he signs on the grounds that the provison impinges upon exective branch powers (e.g., provisions requiring the president to report back to Congress).
By the way, this use of the signing statement is an historical aberration conceived by Samuel Alito during the Reagan Administration. Historically, presidents have used the signing statement to explain why he signed the Bill or to highlight or expound upon certain provisions. It has been, basically, a PR document. The Alito doctrine is that a president can nullify a provision via a signing statement. Alito's ratonale here is to analogize the signing statement to the 'legislative history' of a Bill -- often courts are called upon to interpret the words in a statute and turn to the official record of what was said in the legislative proceedings that led to the Bill's passage. This is legitimate in that such a record can shed light on what the intent of the legislature was -- and hence what the law means. There is really no valid analogy here to the president issuing a signing statement to nullify a part of a Bill that he has signed.
The reason this is so dangerous is that it runs directly counter to the mechanism expressly provided for in the Constitution whereby a president can veto a Bill and then the Congress may override that veto (or not). The idea that a president can delete a portion of a Bill he signs obviates the entire veto/override process and hence should be anathema to all strict constructionists (of which Alito famously claims to be one).
Gustavus has hit upon a 'third way' in which Bush can get what he wants (the war funding) while the Democrats are stymied, avoiding a veto and arguing that the 'strings' that Congess attached to the funding are simply not part of the Bill he signed.