"(Washington, DC) - Today Congresswoman Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sent a letter to the Speaker requesting that appropriate Committee Chairs quickly schedule oversight hearings regarding the recent Bush Signing Statement to circumvent a key provision in the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986) against a permanent military presence in Iraq.

The letter, co-authored by Congresswomen Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, states, “We believe that Congress must find out and the American public made aware of the serious consequences of long-term military basing agreements or treaties that bypass congressional action as the ‘Declaration of Principles’. In addition, it is critical to shed light on the implications of the President’s signing statement and intention to ignore the law. At the same time it is also imperative to give greater scrutiny to the Bush administration’s efforts to maintain a long-term or indefinite military presence in Iraq. Holding hearings will complement the 166 hearings on Iraq that Democrats have held since you became our speaker in January 2007.”

Congresswoman Lee issued the following statement:

“Circumventing this important provision is contrary to the law and oversight hearings are clearly needed for Congress to get answers and for the American public to be assured the law is not being side stepped.

“We need to know why President Bush wants to ignore a key provision he signaled he would uphold by signing the bill into law in the first place.

“This latest action by this Republican administration seems to flagrantly disregard the law of the land. The President has signed into law, five times, legislation that included similar provisions to prohibit permanent military bases in Iraq since 2006 (PL109-289, PL 109-364, PL 110-28, PL 110-116, and PL 110-161.). Now he arbitrarily wants an exemption from the provision in the FY08 Defense Authorization bill.

“We need answers and we need them now. Congress must immediately hold the Bush administration accountable.”"

I don't think that even Judge Scalia could get behind the notion of the Signing Statement,if he really is the Strict Constructionist he claims to be.

Bush's concept of the signing statement is the whisky-soaked-weekend bastard offspring of the Congressional introductory statement, which the Courts have used for centuries in determining the Legislative intent of a Law under review. It's a favorite tool of the Strict Constructionist crowd.

Hearings might be useful in an impeachment context, but that ain't never gonna happen. A more effective technique would be a lawsuit directly chalanging the practice.

Signing statements have zero force of law. Zip. None. I doubt there's ever been a case where a signing statement was ever even considered by anyone. Congressional intent on the other hand does matter.

These things aren't a Bush invention - Clinton had a lot of them too.

"Presidents have used them since Monroe, and, as Bush supporters are quick to point out, Bill Clinton was one of the most prolific issuers of signing statements. But, as professor Phillip W. Cooper's paper in the Sept. 2005 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly reveals, the difference between President Bush's use of the statements and that of his predecessors is a matter of frequency and kind.

***

Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them. (Clinton issued more statements than Bush I, but fewer than Reagan)."

http://www.slate.com/id/2168718/

"Bush’s abuse of signing statements has been a constitutional mess for several years now — with more than 151 signing statements challenging 1149 provisions of laws, Bush is without rival in American history — but this week, matters grew particularly ugly."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14449.html

"George Bush has resumed his practice of disregarding portions of new laws, quietly reserving the right to build permanent military bases in Iraq, keep Congress in the dark on spying activity and block two accountability measures aimed at private security firms accused of wartime abuses.

As he signed a defence bill into law yesterday, Bush quietly added a "signing statement" that asserts his ability to ignore several parts of the measure. The signing statement is not a new tactic for Bush - he has issued hundreds during seven years in office, many more than his predecessors - but Democrats now are planning restraints on the presidential prerogative.

***

"President Bush seems to forget that Congress is a co-equal branch of government, not a body whose decisions he can simply dismiss out of hand when he finds them inconvenient," Democratic congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who has led the push to prevent lasting bases in Iraq, said through a spokesman.

"With this most recent signing [statement] the president is also sending a dangerous signal to the people of Iraq that the US has a long-term interest in occupying their country, a move that will only enflame the insurgency," Woolsey added."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013008N.shtml

The thing is, unless Congress or the Courts move to stop him, he (or any other President for that matter) can get away with it. As Andrew Jackson once said: "The Justices have made their decision. Now let them enforce it...

I don't understand the fuss. Signing statements are worth about as much as used toilet paper. They have zero - zip - standing and everyone is free to ignore them.

Bush is too wimpy to do anything with such power. Now me in charge with said overstepped power

Bush and his conservative nutjobs so inclined have been trying to build the presidency into a position of boundless power. How are they going to feel with a with, say, Hillary as president with the powers they want to exert?



Not a pretty picture .............

We need to call for hearings to find out what happened to the Patriot offensive line.

What, me block?

Burg, you and Bellechick may be off the hook in re: spygate: A rogue Pats fan in my office has suggested that Tyree's catch may not be as miraculous as it seems. He's suggesting that his helmet was coated in pine tar.

Hello, Senator Mitchell? You busy for the next few months...

I think people are being too hard on the Pats. Samuels catches that ball for a pic on the last drive, and were talking about Brady as a hero.

btw, Belichick always goes on 4th down. He knows the length his kicker can make and can't. If the kick misses from that distance, the Giants get 7 or 8 yards more of field position. He punts - and his punter stinks - the Giants likely get the ball on the 20 anyway. Not the much of a difference. As a NY fan who saw Parcells and then Belichick, you can't be surprised he chose to go on 4th when he was in "no man's land".

The thing that was a surprise was that the Pats never adjusted to the Giants rush. They led the league in sacks. It wasn't a surprise that they would be coming. I know Belichick concentrates on the D, but wow! No adjustments?!?!?

Maybe they finally miss Charlie Weiss.