The "Conservative" writers at Voice of Arizona seem so preoccupied with immigrants, homosexuals, equal opportunity bashing, etc., that they've not found time to muster a defense of President Bush's use of the signing statement in my previous two articles.  Most interesting.

I've explained in those articles that the signing statement is the procedure Bush has employed over and over to undermine the constitutional authority of Congress and the Federal Courts. I imagine that VoA "Conservatives" may consider their distractions an act of party loyalty - it keeps the signing statement below the radar - but the days of that strategy may be numbered.

The signing statement President Bush attached to the Patriot Act renewal was the final straw.

Bush signed the Patriot Act Reauthorization bill at a White House ceremony on March 9 with all the appropriate fanfare and hoopla, hailing it "a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people."  

Bush and I disagree with what it means "to protect the American people".

To him, it means continued reauthorization of the NSA domestic eavesdropping program which disregards the law entirely. 

However, with the Patriot Act, he couldn't continue the FBI's domestic surveillance programs if the Act expired, so the White House pressed hard for it's renewal. Now he has it, he's signed it - replete with some controversial provisions which Congress adopted only because they would be monitoring the programs.

Now, what the President failed to acknowledge amid all the ballyhoo at the signing ceremony was that he intended to quietly issue a signing statement, gutting Congressional oversight.

I don't think that's right.  Do you?

Here's the signing statement:

"Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

"The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

"The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient. "

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 9, 2006.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060309-8.html

The terminology in the signing statement translates into English as:

Bush does not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers are being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he will withhold the information if he decides that disclosure would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Well, on March 15, Senator Leahy (D-Vt) followed up with a statement which said, in part:

"The President's signing statement poses two profound threats to our constitutional system of checks and balances. First, his unorthodox but repeatedly invoked unitary executive theory is really a unilateral executive theory. This President appears to believe that he can pick and choose which laws to obey and need never submit to congressional oversight…

"Second, this President appears to hold a strange and novel view of the appropriate role of the President in the legislative process. . . .

"These signing statements are a clever device if Congress will let him get away with them. As he did with the torture legislation, the President can publicly take credit for signing popular legislation while in fact fighting it all the way and refusing to commit to abide by it. At the same time, he can sidestep a veto override."

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200603/031506c.html

So, where are we?  We're still a nation of laws, but whose laws? 

I've read a lot today about the Immigration legislation wending its way through the House and Senate.  I've aso read about the demonstrations in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere.  The issue really is about amnesty, not about traffic snarls or demonstration permits, isn't it?

Well, rest assured, regardless of what Congress enacts, the "guest worker" provisions that Bush wants will end up in the law - and it will be bulletproof!  Like Leahy says, Bush has air-tight, leadpipe cinch way to "sidestep a veto override" - he just sidesteps the veto with a signing statement.

What's to prevent him from using it - again?