White House

One year from right now, George W. Bush will be a “former president”.

Just before the end of the year, I observed that Bush’s pocket veto of a defense spending bill due to its exposure of the current Iraqi regime to lawsuits in the U.S. for Saddam’s actions seemed a little fishy, given that the Senate was still technically in session.

An editorial in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times goes into a little more detail as to the weirdness, treating it also as yet another attempt of the Bush administration to expand the power of the White House:

In this case, Bush tried to have it both ways. He pocket vetoed the bill as if Congress were entirely out of session — but then he did, in fact, return it to Congress by sending it and an outline of his objections to the House clerk. He did so, according to his veto message, “to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.”

If this all sounds like constitutional arcania, consider the outcome if Bush’s faux pocket veto stands unchallenged: Presidents would have absolute veto power any time Congress is not actually in session, bestowing on the chief executive the very authority the founders sought to deny the office. And why did Bush use this veto gambit now? Maybe because the bill in question passed by veto-proof margins.

Regardless of the motive, the Constitution does not allow presidents to pick the kind of veto they wish to use, and it certainly does not condone a pocket veto just because an override is likely. The existing regular veto is plenty potent, and Congress cannot be denied its constitutional right to review vetoes as long as bill return is possible. Congress should do what it did before: treat Bush’s action as a return veto because the bill was returned. And presidents should curb the impulse to play fast and loose with constitutional powers.

Hear, hear!

I still say that if Bush really believed his signing statements have meaning, this would have been one of those bills that such a tactic would be more reasonable.

Ah, if only we had the line-item veto….

Seen in the Courant:

President Bush on Friday used a “pocket veto” to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.[...]

The president’s objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were improved veterans’ benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.

The pocket veto means that troops will get a 3 percent raise Jan. 1 instead of the 3.5 percent the bill authorized.

There are a couple of things that strike me as peculiar here.

First, Bush 43 is the president whose love of “signing statements” is infamous. Wouldn’t vacating or re-interpreting part of a law on some argument of constitutional authority be exactly the reason the White House has been making such use of signing statements? While I can appreciate taking a principled stance of refusing to sign badly-written or poorly-thought-out legislation even when there is much to be desired within it…this seems like a funny time to take that stance. If ever there were a call for a “signing statement”, it would be this bill.

Second—pocket vetoes only work when Congress isn’t in session. Congress is technically still in session, with the Senate having token meetings to block the President’s ability to make recess appointments. If these token meetings are sufficient to prevent a recess appointment, wouldn’t it also be sufficient to preclude a pocket veto?

Or, am I missing something here?

Seen on the newswires:

Thick black smoke billowed from a fire Wednesday on the White House compound in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The blaze appeared to be located in Vice President Dick Cheney’s suite of ceremonial offices on the second floor of the building. Cheney and President Bush were across the street in the West Wing of the White House when the blaze broke out. It appeared to be under control within an hour.

I have to admit the first thing that crossed my mind when reading about the fire was wondering if Cheney and his minions accidentally started out the fire due to overworking paper shredders.

From the New York Times:

The Bush administration reached an agreement with the mortgage industry today on a plan to freeze interest rates for up to five years for a portion of the two million homeowners who bought houses in the last few years with subprime loans.[...]

The agreement, to be formally announced on Thursday by President Bush, is expected to include numerous limitations that would exclude many — if not most — subprime borrowers, according to industry executives who have seen it. It would exclude those who are delinquent on their payments — about 22 percent of all subprime borrowers, according to First American Loan Performance, an industry research firm.[...]

Mortgage companies could also exclude borrowers whom they conclude are making enough money to afford higher monthly payments. Barclays Capital — extrapolating from a similar program recently unveiled in California — estimates that only about 12 percent of all subprime borrowers, or 240,000 homeowners, would get relief.

I’ll reserve judgment until I actually see some numbers. In particular, I’m going to be interested in seeing some discussion about the potential downstream effects of the proposal.

Meanwhile, receiving a “legislative survey” propaganda mailing from my state representative today (in which she requests the opinion of her constituents on various tax proposals being tossed around in the halls of the Connecticut state capitol) reminds me that the Windsor Dems are going to be pushing to implement a revaluation this coming year. The result of that will probably be a 15-20% bump in our property tax.

I wonder if I could trade my grumbling about possibly footing the bill to bail out some folks who gambled and lost in return for a bit of stabilization on the property tax front….

Seen in the Boston Globe:

President Bush this month issued his first signing statement since the Democratic takeover of Congress, reserving the right to bypass 11 provisions in a military appropriations bill under his executive powers.[...]

[Bush] challenged a new law that limits his ability to transfer funds lawmakers approved for one purpose to start a different program, as well as a law requiring him to keep in place an existing command structure for the Navy’s Pacific fleet.

“The Act contains certain provisions identical to those found in prior bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities,” Bush’s statement says.

Even though the President has finally found his veto pen when faced by a Democratic Congress, he still seems to be looking for ways to weasel around legislation.

Seen in a USA Today article discussing a recent Gallup Poll:

Meanwhile, Bush reached an unwelcome record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

Um, congratulations?

Taegan Goddard has relayed a comment that the Washington Post reports was made by President Bush:

Childrens do learn.

This bit of enlightenment was apparently uttered in the context of seeking re-authorization of No Child Left Behind.

Seen on the news wires:

Alberto Gonzales, the nation’s first Hispanic attorney general, announced his resignation Monday — ending a nasty, monthslong standoff over his honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.

What’s the line from a Queen song….oh, yeah: “Another one bites the dust.”

RedState is also teasing its readers with the comment:

[Expect] some seriously bad news from Justice in the next few days. AGAG’s resignation was not the end, but the beginning.

Let’s see, Alberto Gonzales is in the political dog house.

For some folks, he’s been in the dog house for a very long time, since he crafted the legal contortionism that the White House has used to justify the, um, “strenuous” forms of interrogation the administration has pursued in the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

For many more folks, he’s in the dog house over politically motivated firings of federal attorneys and his fast-and-loose games with honesty in the Congressional inquiries resulting therefrom.

That lays the groundwork for the latest installment in the “What are they Thinking” game when following Congress. From the Los Angeles Times:

The Justice Department is putting the final touches on regulations that could give Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in California and other states, including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.

The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year’s reauthorization of the Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.

Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use “fast track” procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court.

The move to shorten the appeals process and effectively speed up executions comes at a time of growing national concern about the fairness of the death penalty, underscored by the use of DNA testing to establish the innocence of more than a dozen death row inmates in recent years.

I’m not a fan at recent attempts to bypass judicial oversight when it comes to the tactics sought by the Administration and seemingly blessed by Congress in the war on terror. However there’s just something so wrong about the notion of giving a guy who blessed torture and who lies under oath the power to accelerate executions.