Sunday, December 24, 2006
To All
Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to all of you who have taken the time to read my blog and to respond every now and again to let me know you are out there. You have made writing this thing a joy.
And for the doubters, empirical proof of Santa Clause and the magic he and his elves pull off each year!
|
And for the doubters, empirical proof of Santa Clause and the magic he and his elves pull off each year!
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Screwy
Here are all the little engines that couldn't--or the clearing of the president's desks of all the bills that do not get a statement:
H.J. Res. 101, which provides that the first regular session of the 110th Congress will begin at noon on Thursday, January 4, 2007;
S. 214, the "United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act," which establishes the United States-Mexico transboundary aquifer assessment program to characterize, map, and model transboundary groundwater resources along the United States-Mexico border;
S. 362, the "Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act," which establishes programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Coast to identify, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety;
S. 707, the "Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act" or the "PREEMIE Act," which authorizes appropriations through FY 2011 for the Department of Health and Human Services to expand and coordinate research and educational activities related to preterm labor and delivery and infant mortality; and delays the effective date of certain Head Start regulations
S. 895, the "Rural Water Supply Act of 2006," which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to: carry out a rural water supply program; and make available loan guarantees for rural water supply projects, extraordinary operation and maintenance activity for Reclamation facilities, or improvements to water infrastructure directly associated with a reclamation project;
S. 1096, the "Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act," which designates portions of the Musconetcong River in New Jersey as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;
S. 1378, the "National Historic Preservation Act Amendments Act of 2006," which extends the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund and revises the membership and other authorities of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;
S. 1529, the "City of Yuma Improvement Act," which conveys certain Federal land to the City of Yuma, Arizona, in exchange for three non-Federal parcels of land;
S. 1608, the "Undertaking Spam, Spyware, and Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006" or the "U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006," which authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to provide assistance to and share information with foreign law enforcement agencies; provides for procedures for confidentiality and delayed notification when requesting information about suspected perpetrators of fraud; and provides protection to private sector entities for voluntary provision of information;
S. 2125, the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006," which promotes relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo;
S. 2150, the "Eugene Land Conveyance Act," which directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 12 acres of Federal land to the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the purpose of constructing an environmental education center and wildlife viewing area;
S. 2205, the "Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2006," which conveys certain parcels of Federal land to the State of South Dakota; and to sell certain parcels of Federal land to leaseholders;
S. 2653, the "Call Home Act of 206," which requires the Federal Communications Commission to take action to reduce the cost of calling home for Armed Forces personnel stationed or deployed abroad; and requires the Department of Commerce to accelerate the award of $1 billion for public safety interoperable communications grants to no later than September 30, 2007, subject to the receipt of qualified applications;
S. 2753, the "Dam Safety Act of 2006," which reauthorizes the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) through fiscal year 2011;
S. 3421, the "Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006," which makes changes in several veterans' affairs programs and benefits, including: information security; health; construction; housing benefits and homeless veteran assistance; and attorney representation in benefits cases;
S. 3546, the "Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act," which requires the reporting of serious adverse associated with dietary supplements and certain non-prescription drugs sold and consumed in the United States;
S. 3821, the "Creating Opportunities for Minor League Professionals Entertainers, and Teams through Legal Entry Act of 2006" or the "COMPETE Act of 2006," which expands eligibility for the P-1 visa program for certain athletes seeking to temporarily enter the United States to participate in an athletic competition or performance;
S. 4042, which prohibits disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces, and provides for punishment of such demonstrations as a misdemeanor;
S. 4091, the "Social Security Trust Funds Restoration Act of 2006," which appropriates funds from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Social Security Trust Funds to restore amounts erroneously overpaid under the voluntary withholding of taxes program;
S. 4092, which authorizes the construction of a digital television broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County, Colorado, by any entity holding an approved Federal Communications Commission permit to construct such a tower; and
S. 4093, which extends through September 30, 2007, the period of time during which certain borrowers remain eligible for Department of Agriculture guaranteed operating loans.
Now, riddle me this
I have been updating my database for the use of the term "unitary executive" by the president for a book that I am working on, and for some reason I am getting some inconsistency in the search engine results from what has to be the use of the same database.
First, the database. Normally, I go to the "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents," which has a great search engine and is usually fairly reliable. Problem is that it often is months behind, so if you are trying to be as current as possible, it may not be your best database.
The White House webpage can give fairly up to current information, but the problem is you don't have a lot of control over the terms you use to search. So, my first approach is to search for "unitary executive," which produces 114 results, the most recent of which is the signing statement for the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007." But I know from the recent signing statements that I have logged, the term "unitary executive" has popped up. So my second approach is to search the phrase that is boilerplate for the signing statement on the White House webpage: "president's statement on" That search yields 401 results and lo and behold the most recent statement, the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006" has the term I am looking for, as does some half dozen or so, all more current than the middle of October. Any idea why? Why wouldn't a search for "unitary executive" give me the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act? Any answers?
|
H.J. Res. 101, which provides that the first regular session of the 110th Congress will begin at noon on Thursday, January 4, 2007;
S. 214, the "United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act," which establishes the United States-Mexico transboundary aquifer assessment program to characterize, map, and model transboundary groundwater resources along the United States-Mexico border;
S. 362, the "Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act," which establishes programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Coast to identify, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety;
S. 707, the "Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act" or the "PREEMIE Act," which authorizes appropriations through FY 2011 for the Department of Health and Human Services to expand and coordinate research and educational activities related to preterm labor and delivery and infant mortality; and delays the effective date of certain Head Start regulations
S. 895, the "Rural Water Supply Act of 2006," which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to: carry out a rural water supply program; and make available loan guarantees for rural water supply projects, extraordinary operation and maintenance activity for Reclamation facilities, or improvements to water infrastructure directly associated with a reclamation project;
S. 1096, the "Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act," which designates portions of the Musconetcong River in New Jersey as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;
S. 1378, the "National Historic Preservation Act Amendments Act of 2006," which extends the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund and revises the membership and other authorities of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;
S. 1529, the "City of Yuma Improvement Act," which conveys certain Federal land to the City of Yuma, Arizona, in exchange for three non-Federal parcels of land;
S. 1608, the "Undertaking Spam, Spyware, and Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006" or the "U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006," which authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to provide assistance to and share information with foreign law enforcement agencies; provides for procedures for confidentiality and delayed notification when requesting information about suspected perpetrators of fraud; and provides protection to private sector entities for voluntary provision of information;
S. 2125, the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006," which promotes relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo;
S. 2150, the "Eugene Land Conveyance Act," which directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 12 acres of Federal land to the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the purpose of constructing an environmental education center and wildlife viewing area;
S. 2205, the "Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2006," which conveys certain parcels of Federal land to the State of South Dakota; and to sell certain parcels of Federal land to leaseholders;
S. 2653, the "Call Home Act of 206," which requires the Federal Communications Commission to take action to reduce the cost of calling home for Armed Forces personnel stationed or deployed abroad; and requires the Department of Commerce to accelerate the award of $1 billion for public safety interoperable communications grants to no later than September 30, 2007, subject to the receipt of qualified applications;
S. 2753, the "Dam Safety Act of 2006," which reauthorizes the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) through fiscal year 2011;
S. 3421, the "Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006," which makes changes in several veterans' affairs programs and benefits, including: information security; health; construction; housing benefits and homeless veteran assistance; and attorney representation in benefits cases;
S. 3546, the "Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act," which requires the reporting of serious adverse associated with dietary supplements and certain non-prescription drugs sold and consumed in the United States;
S. 3821, the "Creating Opportunities for Minor League Professionals Entertainers, and Teams through Legal Entry Act of 2006" or the "COMPETE Act of 2006," which expands eligibility for the P-1 visa program for certain athletes seeking to temporarily enter the United States to participate in an athletic competition or performance;
S. 4042, which prohibits disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces, and provides for punishment of such demonstrations as a misdemeanor;
S. 4091, the "Social Security Trust Funds Restoration Act of 2006," which appropriates funds from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Social Security Trust Funds to restore amounts erroneously overpaid under the voluntary withholding of taxes program;
S. 4092, which authorizes the construction of a digital television broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County, Colorado, by any entity holding an approved Federal Communications Commission permit to construct such a tower; and
S. 4093, which extends through September 30, 2007, the period of time during which certain borrowers remain eligible for Department of Agriculture guaranteed operating loans.
Now, riddle me this
I have been updating my database for the use of the term "unitary executive" by the president for a book that I am working on, and for some reason I am getting some inconsistency in the search engine results from what has to be the use of the same database.
First, the database. Normally, I go to the "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents," which has a great search engine and is usually fairly reliable. Problem is that it often is months behind, so if you are trying to be as current as possible, it may not be your best database.
The White House webpage can give fairly up to current information, but the problem is you don't have a lot of control over the terms you use to search. So, my first approach is to search for "unitary executive," which produces 114 results, the most recent of which is the signing statement for the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007." But I know from the recent signing statements that I have logged, the term "unitary executive" has popped up. So my second approach is to search the phrase that is boilerplate for the signing statement on the White House webpage: "president's statement on" That search yields 401 results and lo and behold the most recent statement, the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006" has the term I am looking for, as does some half dozen or so, all more current than the middle of October. Any idea why? Why wouldn't a search for "unitary executive" give me the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act? Any answers?
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Begging Your Indulgence
If you will allow me, I wish to speak one more day about the recent spate of signing statements issued by President Bush since there have been some interesting reactions to one in particular.
First, to give you a sense of how the rhetorical signing statement works (that is, if these are fairly arcane and technical documents, how does it mobilize public opinion if it does not get covered in the MSM--sort of like the "tree falling in the woods" example.
In that crazy bill President Bush signed yesterday dealing with a number of subjects, including international trade, it appeared in a website aimed at the textile industry. This site--Fibre 2 Fashion--ran a press release form USTR Susan C. Schwab, applauding President Bush's signing of the bill and referencing the signing statement. Thus it confirms the notion that the rhetorical signing statement isn't directed at mass public opinion, but rather elite opinion since elites are more important to the day to day matters of governing. There is already good evidence that in the aggregate, we know the president will issue more rhetorical signing statements when there is a federal election or when his poll numbers are in a state of flux--but that doesn't tell us much about the use of the device at the individual level. It is a promising area of study that still needs a great deal of attention.
Speaking of the rhetorical presidency--Yesterday I wrote about the President using the Indian Treaty Room as a way to reinforce his message of maintaining a strong war footing. In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank also remarks on the unusual choice of a room to hold a press briefing.
Next, the signing statement President Bush issued regarding the trade of nuclear material to India is taking on some interesting characteristics as well as criticisms. Further, it is also quickly becoming clear that the challenges in the signing statement may not have much to do with separation of powers concerns, or concerns over presidential prerogatives, but rather domestic and foreign politics.
The President, it seems, was taking on heat from India when the bill landed on his desk. It seems that India did not much care for the intrusion upon Indian sovereignty in a couple of provisions of the bill. If you recall from my discussion of the signing statement, Sections 103 and 104 were among those the President cited as problematic. In Section 103, Congress outlined eight distinct declarations of foreign policy regarding the sale of nuclear material to India. The Congress were concerned mostly with nuclear material winding up in the hands of Iran, and thus mandated "...that presidents should report each year on whether India was fully cooperating to restrain the Iranian nuclear program." When President Bush signed the bill, he treated that demand as "advisory."
The author of this provision, Senator Tom Harkin (D.IA) has not taken lightly to President Bush's signing statement, arguing that it is "...outrageous that the President has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to U.S. national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress’ declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran’s nuclear weapons arsenal" and with his signing statement has "...once again...shown he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution."
In addition, one part of Section 104 required the Nuclear Suppliers Group to sign off on the deal before it becomes binding. The NSG, which consists of 45 countries, was formed in 1974 in response to India's detonation of a nuclear bomb and is designed to enforce non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, in particular by states that are considered outlaw or renegade in the international community (like Iran). President Bush also treated the NSG action as advisory, which has drawn the ire of Congressman Ed Markey (D.MA), who stated: "The President is turning decades of U.S. international policy on its head--and [is] thumbing his nose at Congress at the same time." Others worry that if the NSG refuses to sign off, President Bush will simply go forward and ignore the international organization, thus destroying an organization dedicated to keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of renegade states as well as undermining US credibility in the World on yet another issue.
But from the President's POV, he was catching a great deal of heat from India over what they perceived to be overly hostile language from the Congress, and language that does not treat the country as a sovereign nation. Leaders in India were "outraged" over the language prior to President Bush's signing statement, expressing concerns about "...certain extraneous and prescriptive clauses that may limit its strategic autonomy and independence of its foreign policy", and even after the signing statement, the "Prime Minister...still has some concerns." It is clear that from a foreign policy standpoint, the United States needs India as a balance to the growing influence of China, as well as a logger-head in the region to fight the GWOT.
So this is continuing to play out, but regardless of how it concludes, it gives us a nice insight into some of the pressures that drive a signing statement, and that it isn't always just the protection of prerogatives despite what the language may say.
|
First, to give you a sense of how the rhetorical signing statement works (that is, if these are fairly arcane and technical documents, how does it mobilize public opinion if it does not get covered in the MSM--sort of like the "tree falling in the woods" example.
In that crazy bill President Bush signed yesterday dealing with a number of subjects, including international trade, it appeared in a website aimed at the textile industry. This site--Fibre 2 Fashion--ran a press release form USTR Susan C. Schwab, applauding President Bush's signing of the bill and referencing the signing statement. Thus it confirms the notion that the rhetorical signing statement isn't directed at mass public opinion, but rather elite opinion since elites are more important to the day to day matters of governing. There is already good evidence that in the aggregate, we know the president will issue more rhetorical signing statements when there is a federal election or when his poll numbers are in a state of flux--but that doesn't tell us much about the use of the device at the individual level. It is a promising area of study that still needs a great deal of attention.
Speaking of the rhetorical presidency--Yesterday I wrote about the President using the Indian Treaty Room as a way to reinforce his message of maintaining a strong war footing. In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank also remarks on the unusual choice of a room to hold a press briefing.
Next, the signing statement President Bush issued regarding the trade of nuclear material to India is taking on some interesting characteristics as well as criticisms. Further, it is also quickly becoming clear that the challenges in the signing statement may not have much to do with separation of powers concerns, or concerns over presidential prerogatives, but rather domestic and foreign politics.
The President, it seems, was taking on heat from India when the bill landed on his desk. It seems that India did not much care for the intrusion upon Indian sovereignty in a couple of provisions of the bill. If you recall from my discussion of the signing statement, Sections 103 and 104 were among those the President cited as problematic. In Section 103, Congress outlined eight distinct declarations of foreign policy regarding the sale of nuclear material to India. The Congress were concerned mostly with nuclear material winding up in the hands of Iran, and thus mandated "...that presidents should report each year on whether India was fully cooperating to restrain the Iranian nuclear program." When President Bush signed the bill, he treated that demand as "advisory."
The author of this provision, Senator Tom Harkin (D.IA) has not taken lightly to President Bush's signing statement, arguing that it is "...outrageous that the President has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to U.S. national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress’ declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran’s nuclear weapons arsenal" and with his signing statement has "...once again...shown he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution."
In addition, one part of Section 104 required the Nuclear Suppliers Group to sign off on the deal before it becomes binding. The NSG, which consists of 45 countries, was formed in 1974 in response to India's detonation of a nuclear bomb and is designed to enforce non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, in particular by states that are considered outlaw or renegade in the international community (like Iran). President Bush also treated the NSG action as advisory, which has drawn the ire of Congressman Ed Markey (D.MA), who stated: "The President is turning decades of U.S. international policy on its head--and [is] thumbing his nose at Congress at the same time." Others worry that if the NSG refuses to sign off, President Bush will simply go forward and ignore the international organization, thus destroying an organization dedicated to keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of renegade states as well as undermining US credibility in the World on yet another issue.
But from the President's POV, he was catching a great deal of heat from India over what they perceived to be overly hostile language from the Congress, and language that does not treat the country as a sovereign nation. Leaders in India were "outraged" over the language prior to President Bush's signing statement, expressing concerns about "...certain extraneous and prescriptive clauses that may limit its strategic autonomy and independence of its foreign policy", and even after the signing statement, the "Prime Minister...still has some concerns." It is clear that from a foreign policy standpoint, the United States needs India as a balance to the growing influence of China, as well as a logger-head in the region to fight the GWOT.
So this is continuing to play out, but regardless of how it concludes, it gives us a nice insight into some of the pressures that drive a signing statement, and that it isn't always just the protection of prerogatives despite what the language may say.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Drum Roll Please
Give it up to the Bush administration. In earnest, as the days of 2006 are ticking away, President Bush has gotten busy and finally pushed his signing statement challenges over the 1100 mark.
Today, President Bush was busy with his 10:00 am press briefing next door in the Indian Treaty Room in the Eisenhower Building, a perfect place to project the image of a commander in chief during a time of war. It is the same room where the Bretton Woods Treaty and the UN Charter were signed, a mere coincidence, I am sure.
After finishing the press conference (which lasted less than an hour--only one question each for those lucky enough to get the call), President Bush walked down the hall to Room 450 in the Eisenhower Office Building, where he signed a real bastard child of a bill, the "Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006." In a ten-minute statement, President Bush spelled it out--the bill was about tax reform, renewable energy, affordable health insurance, helping farmers, and busting open oversea markets. Like I said--a real bastard of a bill (there were five different versions of the bill).
But while it was all smiles across the way from the White House, the protectors of prerogatives toiling away inside the White House and down the street at the DOJ office produced the non-public signing statement--the one that contains the real "meat and potatoes." In it, President Bush issued six (at least) signing statements with some interesting comments.
In the second paragraph, he took exception to two provisions that ordered him to submit particular recommendations to the Congress, which he noted (as he has done many times before) that the Constitution gives the power to the president to determine what he will or will not recommend. But for good measure, he also tossed in that the provision also impinged upon his authority to "supervise the unitary executive branch" (his ability to tell which executive branch officials to come up with the particular recommendations).
In the next paragraph--and an interesting one at that--he decides to treat as advisory and not mandatory a provision that requires the "concurrence of State officials as a precondition to the execution of the laws..." Now mind you, President Bush ran as a governor, Reagan Republican, and "state's righter," yet here he is qualifying a provision that allows a state governor (and this particular provision involves western states) a say on how the federal government can lay claim to private lands (something that Republicans boiled about during the Clinton administration). As such, and to make sure that everyone knew he meant it, President Bush writes that he has the authority to treat this condition as advisory because of the Constitution's "vesting in the President of the executive power and the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Wow. Calling in the big guns when you begin to rely on the vesting clause of all things.
Finally, in the last paragraph, President Bush qualifies a mandate that he consult with certain congressional committees whenever he monkeys with the Carribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, among other things. This particular provision deals with trade benefits for Haiti. Here again, similar to the previous paragraph, President Bush is overriding the concerns of certain legislators who are attempting to protect businesses in their districts or states from perceived unfair trade deals that benefit Haiti ("In General--Haiti shall be eligible for preferential treatment under this section if the President determines and certifies to Congress that Haiti...").
I have to credit the administration, though, regarding the publicity of the signing statements, giving the press and public ample opportunity to keep check. First, Tony Snow tells those reporters in attendance that the President is signing bills and then today, on the White House website where the signing ceremony information resides, the White House has provided a link to the private statement that makes all the challenges. So nothing underhanded here (other than alluding to a number of objectionable provisions without specifying precisely which ones are being singled out--but that is what researchers are for).
|
Today, President Bush was busy with his 10:00 am press briefing next door in the Indian Treaty Room in the Eisenhower Building, a perfect place to project the image of a commander in chief during a time of war. It is the same room where the Bretton Woods Treaty and the UN Charter were signed, a mere coincidence, I am sure.
After finishing the press conference (which lasted less than an hour--only one question each for those lucky enough to get the call), President Bush walked down the hall to Room 450 in the Eisenhower Office Building, where he signed a real bastard child of a bill, the "Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006." In a ten-minute statement, President Bush spelled it out--the bill was about tax reform, renewable energy, affordable health insurance, helping farmers, and busting open oversea markets. Like I said--a real bastard of a bill (there were five different versions of the bill).
But while it was all smiles across the way from the White House, the protectors of prerogatives toiling away inside the White House and down the street at the DOJ office produced the non-public signing statement--the one that contains the real "meat and potatoes." In it, President Bush issued six (at least) signing statements with some interesting comments.
In the second paragraph, he took exception to two provisions that ordered him to submit particular recommendations to the Congress, which he noted (as he has done many times before) that the Constitution gives the power to the president to determine what he will or will not recommend. But for good measure, he also tossed in that the provision also impinged upon his authority to "supervise the unitary executive branch" (his ability to tell which executive branch officials to come up with the particular recommendations).
In the next paragraph--and an interesting one at that--he decides to treat as advisory and not mandatory a provision that requires the "concurrence of State officials as a precondition to the execution of the laws..." Now mind you, President Bush ran as a governor, Reagan Republican, and "state's righter," yet here he is qualifying a provision that allows a state governor (and this particular provision involves western states) a say on how the federal government can lay claim to private lands (something that Republicans boiled about during the Clinton administration). As such, and to make sure that everyone knew he meant it, President Bush writes that he has the authority to treat this condition as advisory because of the Constitution's "vesting in the President of the executive power and the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Wow. Calling in the big guns when you begin to rely on the vesting clause of all things.
Finally, in the last paragraph, President Bush qualifies a mandate that he consult with certain congressional committees whenever he monkeys with the Carribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, among other things. This particular provision deals with trade benefits for Haiti. Here again, similar to the previous paragraph, President Bush is overriding the concerns of certain legislators who are attempting to protect businesses in their districts or states from perceived unfair trade deals that benefit Haiti ("In General--Haiti shall be eligible for preferential treatment under this section if the President determines and certifies to Congress that Haiti...").
I have to credit the administration, though, regarding the publicity of the signing statements, giving the press and public ample opportunity to keep check. First, Tony Snow tells those reporters in attendance that the President is signing bills and then today, on the White House website where the signing ceremony information resides, the White House has provided a link to the private statement that makes all the challenges. So nothing underhanded here (other than alluding to a number of objectionable provisions without specifying precisely which ones are being singled out--but that is what researchers are for).
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Statements, Statements, Everywhere...
More news on the signing statement front. First, if you wish to see the rhetorical value of the signing statement, then turn your attention to this press release from a private nuclear company operating in India, which expects to see a lot of business as a result of yesterday's signing of the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act. The company, Thorium Power, was one of the many in attendance at yesterday's signing, something that they were too pleased to tell all who would listen:
Seth Grae, Thorium's Chief Executive Officer, and Ambassador Dennis Hays, the company's Vice President and Director of Government Relations, joined senior administration officials, members of Congress and representatives of the influential Indian-American community as President Bush officially opened nuclear trade relations between the United States and India. The signing of the agreement will enable Thorium Power to pursue opportunities in a country that currently boasts the fastest growing nuclear sectors in the world.
There is a bright side to yesterday's signing statement and signing ceremony. It was picked up, in detail, by the press. Trouble is, the press that noticed was not domestic but rather based in India. First, in the Hindustan Times, the two authors in the byline noted that the law was a benefit to India, and also noted, pleasingly, that the parts of the act where Congress attempted to limit India's benefit, the President stepped in to "allay" India's fears because President Bush told Congress he would treat those sections as "advisory."
And a news site dedicated to "connecting the Telugu community", an editorial also finds support in President Bush's signing statement, taking a paragraph to explain to the readers what a signing statement is and why they are important--or at least how the editorial understands their importance:
US presidents have often used such signing statements to interpret a law the way they choose without taking the extreme step of rejecting a bill outright with a veto. Usually these are quietly listed in the Federal Register recording all executive actions without a public announcement.
Pretty good.
President Bush also hurriedly announced the signing of a couple more bills today. He signed the reauthorization of the "Ryan White CARE Act," named for Ryan White, the young boy in 1990 who died of AIDS after receiving the disease from infected blood that was transferred into him via treatment for hemophilia. The official title of the bill is the "Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006" and the signing statement was purely rhetorical. It is also important to note that incoming-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also sent along her own statement in support of President Bush's signing statement. Now let's see if she will make it a practice of attaching her own signing statement to bills that are sent to the President. President Bush also signed the Combating Autism Act of 2006, which President Bush notes that he is "proud to sign this bill into law and [he is] confident that it will serve as an important foundation for our Nation's efforts to find a cure for autism." To make sure of the rhetorical value of these two signings (there was no formal signing ceremony), Press Secretary Tony Snow announced the signings at the start of his noon press gaggle. By getting zero questions about it, or about the duplicitous statements yesterday, I think the administration got its answer.
Finally, to round things off, President Bush signed two other bills--again of the rhetorical variety but not mentioned at the gaggle: HR 5466: the "Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act" and S. 3678, the "Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act" which created a new agency--the "Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority" inside Health and Human Services and "authorizes appropriations through 2011 to improve bioterrorism and other public health emergency planning and preparedness activities."
What is noteworthy about today's signings? It is the first time since President Bush's first term that he issued a string of signing statements that did not challenge any provisions of the law. In fact, by looking at my data, we have to go all the way back to President Bush's first several signing statements, all of which were garden variety rhetorical statements.
Either we are coming full circle or perhaps we are given some insight into his New Years resolution?
|
Seth Grae, Thorium's Chief Executive Officer, and Ambassador Dennis Hays, the company's Vice President and Director of Government Relations, joined senior administration officials, members of Congress and representatives of the influential Indian-American community as President Bush officially opened nuclear trade relations between the United States and India. The signing of the agreement will enable Thorium Power to pursue opportunities in a country that currently boasts the fastest growing nuclear sectors in the world.
There is a bright side to yesterday's signing statement and signing ceremony. It was picked up, in detail, by the press. Trouble is, the press that noticed was not domestic but rather based in India. First, in the Hindustan Times, the two authors in the byline noted that the law was a benefit to India, and also noted, pleasingly, that the parts of the act where Congress attempted to limit India's benefit, the President stepped in to "allay" India's fears because President Bush told Congress he would treat those sections as "advisory."
And a news site dedicated to "connecting the Telugu community", an editorial also finds support in President Bush's signing statement, taking a paragraph to explain to the readers what a signing statement is and why they are important--or at least how the editorial understands their importance:
US presidents have often used such signing statements to interpret a law the way they choose without taking the extreme step of rejecting a bill outright with a veto. Usually these are quietly listed in the Federal Register recording all executive actions without a public announcement.
Pretty good.
President Bush also hurriedly announced the signing of a couple more bills today. He signed the reauthorization of the "Ryan White CARE Act," named for Ryan White, the young boy in 1990 who died of AIDS after receiving the disease from infected blood that was transferred into him via treatment for hemophilia. The official title of the bill is the "Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006" and the signing statement was purely rhetorical. It is also important to note that incoming-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also sent along her own statement in support of President Bush's signing statement. Now let's see if she will make it a practice of attaching her own signing statement to bills that are sent to the President. President Bush also signed the Combating Autism Act of 2006, which President Bush notes that he is "proud to sign this bill into law and [he is] confident that it will serve as an important foundation for our Nation's efforts to find a cure for autism." To make sure of the rhetorical value of these two signings (there was no formal signing ceremony), Press Secretary Tony Snow announced the signings at the start of his noon press gaggle. By getting zero questions about it, or about the duplicitous statements yesterday, I think the administration got its answer.
Finally, to round things off, President Bush signed two other bills--again of the rhetorical variety but not mentioned at the gaggle: HR 5466: the "Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act" and S. 3678, the "Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act" which created a new agency--the "Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority" inside Health and Human Services and "authorizes appropriations through 2011 to improve bioterrorism and other public health emergency planning and preparedness activities."
What is noteworthy about today's signings? It is the first time since President Bush's first term that he issued a string of signing statements that did not challenge any provisions of the law. In fact, by looking at my data, we have to go all the way back to President Bush's first several signing statements, all of which were garden variety rhetorical statements.
Either we are coming full circle or perhaps we are given some insight into his New Years resolution?
Monday, December 18, 2006
Whoop D'ere It Is
Today, with some fanfare, President Bush signed the "Henry Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act," which will actually get tacked to the 110th since Congress is out of session. And with this signing, we get to see deception at its finest.
This particular signing, complete with a "Fact Sheet" and a special focus on "Energy," is fairly lengthy and congratulatory, and it is exactly what nearly everyone thinks about, or at least they did before President Bush, when they heard the term "signing statement."
There are folks assembled behind the President, and one of the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, and most importantly, one action shot of President Bush signing the bill. It also goes on for 17 paragraphs, is broken up a couple of times by applause, and very importantly numbered points for the journalists in attendance, describing the "four goals" the administration hopes to achieve after the law takes place.
In the parlance of those of us studying the presidential signing statement, this is what we refer to as a rhetorical signing statement, which is designed to give the administration maximum coverage, bumping off (needed in this case) any bad news for the day (temporarily, of course). But this is all smoke and mirrors--kissing babies, and first kisses, and all those good things that happen in life.
A second signing statement--the evil twin of this one--also went into effect at roughly the same period that this one was signed. This statement has been pruned of the niceties. It was not publicly announced. There were no cameras, dignitaries, reporters--nobody. This signing statement is only three paragraphs long, but don't let it's small size fool you. This one means business.
In this particular signing statement, the President:
The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act that mandate, regulate, or prohibit submission of information to the Congress, an international organization, or the public, such as sections 104, 109, 261, 271, 272, 273, 274, and 275, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to protect and control information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
Thus all of the attention that the signing received was directed precisely where the administration wanted, and away from the sections of the bill that the President has undermined, and by looking at Google News, it appears it worked.
For those of you who are counting along with me, here is the numbers to date:
With today's challenges, President Bush has issued a total of 137 signing statements and has made 1097 separate and distinct challenges to the provisions of the laws he has signed. It is clear that we won't have the type of signing statement we saw this time last year, but President Bush could be noteworthy by issuing one more signing statement and breaking over that 1100 mark!
Here's hoping
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Section 103 declares the policy of the US shall be 1) for India and Pakistan to stop production of nuclear material that can be used for military purpose; 2) to push India into "nonproliferation regimes and activities; 3) to push India into arms control agreements; 4) to meet certain requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); 5) to meet the Guidelines for Nuclear Transfers and other multilateral arrangements; 6) to meet with the multilateral Nuclear Suppliers Group to restrict the transfers of nuclear materials; 7) to insure compliance with the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty; and 8) to make sure that any export in nuclear material to India is for non-military purposes.
** Section 104(d)(2)
|
This particular signing, complete with a "Fact Sheet" and a special focus on "Energy," is fairly lengthy and congratulatory, and it is exactly what nearly everyone thinks about, or at least they did before President Bush, when they heard the term "signing statement."
There are folks assembled behind the President, and one of the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, and most importantly, one action shot of President Bush signing the bill. It also goes on for 17 paragraphs, is broken up a couple of times by applause, and very importantly numbered points for the journalists in attendance, describing the "four goals" the administration hopes to achieve after the law takes place.
In the parlance of those of us studying the presidential signing statement, this is what we refer to as a rhetorical signing statement, which is designed to give the administration maximum coverage, bumping off (needed in this case) any bad news for the day (temporarily, of course). But this is all smoke and mirrors--kissing babies, and first kisses, and all those good things that happen in life.
A second signing statement--the evil twin of this one--also went into effect at roughly the same period that this one was signed. This statement has been pruned of the niceties. It was not publicly announced. There were no cameras, dignitaries, reporters--nobody. This signing statement is only three paragraphs long, but don't let it's small size fool you. This one means business.
In this particular signing statement, the President:
- Tells Congress that one section* of the bill, where Congress thinks it is setting policy, will only be treated as advisory;
- Treats as advisory a provision** that cuts the President out of approving of any nuclear item to India that runs contrary to the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines;
The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act that mandate, regulate, or prohibit submission of information to the Congress, an international organization, or the public, such as sections 104, 109, 261, 271, 272, 273, 274, and 275, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to protect and control information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
Thus all of the attention that the signing received was directed precisely where the administration wanted, and away from the sections of the bill that the President has undermined, and by looking at Google News, it appears it worked.
For those of you who are counting along with me, here is the numbers to date:
With today's challenges, President Bush has issued a total of 137 signing statements and has made 1097 separate and distinct challenges to the provisions of the laws he has signed. It is clear that we won't have the type of signing statement we saw this time last year, but President Bush could be noteworthy by issuing one more signing statement and breaking over that 1100 mark!
Here's hoping
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Section 103 declares the policy of the US shall be 1) for India and Pakistan to stop production of nuclear material that can be used for military purpose; 2) to push India into "nonproliferation regimes and activities; 3) to push India into arms control agreements; 4) to meet certain requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); 5) to meet the Guidelines for Nuclear Transfers and other multilateral arrangements; 6) to meet with the multilateral Nuclear Suppliers Group to restrict the transfers of nuclear materials; 7) to insure compliance with the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty; and 8) to make sure that any export in nuclear material to India is for non-military purposes.
** Section 104(d)(2)
Friday, December 15, 2006
World War III--The War on Christmas
There are things we can expect to see come the start of the Christmas season: There is Rudolph, and Frosty, and the "Miser" brothers; There is Christmas advertising pushing closer to Halloween; and there is the "War on Christmas."
In today's edition of "Slate," David Greenberg traces the history behind the "War on Christmas." This all stems from the recent flak in the Seattle Airport where a Rabbi asked to have an "eight foot tall menorah" displayed among the Christmas trees that were on display. The airport instead removed the trees, reasoning that if the menorah went up, then every other religious group in the country would demand to have their religious symbols on display as well (similar reasoning, if you recall, to Senator Santorum's argument against gay marriage--you know, "if you allow homosexuals to marry, then...man on chicken love"). As it ended, the trees came back after the Rabbi was deluged by hate mail, death threats, and so on. Christmas saved.
But without a lot of coverage was the leaders of the pack--Fox News and this conjured up "problem" that isn't.
For instance, here is Bill O'Reilly on December 11:
...the war on Christmas continues. It's not as bad as last year, but it's still around, even if the far left press won't admit it.
Which is funny because two nights later, Chief Demagogue John Gibson praises the return of the Christmas trees, stating that the trees "are now all back up again thanks to the media frenzy that ensued..."
Last year, the "war on Christmas" was all Fox's was about, thanks in part to Gibson's book on the subject and "No Spinning" spinster Bill O'Reilly, who then claimed the war was all part of "the secular progressive movement" losing attempt to "marginalize Christmas"! And for Gibson, when he wasn't blabbering about it on his show (The Big Story with John Gibson), he was being interviewed on any number of Fox News shows, like this December 21, 2005 appearance on Hannity and Company (when did Colmes get bumped from the marquee?) under the title: JOHN GIBSON DEFENDS THE VERACITY OF THE SUPPOSED WAR ON CHRISTMAS. Gibson took the time to trumpet: "I say we won the war on Christmas" where Colmes retorts: "But 'war on Christmas' is a little bit exaggerated, isn't it?" and Gibson jabs: "No" and Colmes, in his infinite wisdom, responds: "All right." Now I see why he has been moved from the marquee.
Looking over a Lexis search, this "war on Christmas" is a popular news item, with the rest of the news universe following Fox's lead. But what a bunch of nonsense. Every year, on cue, countless hours of television news coupled with precious space on the newspage is wasted over a problem that does not exist. Why?
For conservatives, it has provided a nice break from the beating they have taken over the War on Iraq, scandal-rama, and the scarce presence of an agenda. For a couple of months, they are able to prove that they matter. And the rest of the "secular" media follows right in line. Why? When Fox News steps up on the soap box to decry the bogey man, imagine what could be accomplished if the remaining media simply ignored them?
But they can't. And they can't for two reasons:
First, we all know how easy it is for conservatives to cow the "mainstream media" into playing along with the "liberal" label. Although I don't think this is really it because conservatives--at least O'Reilly--will rip them anyhow.
The second reason, which fits, is this is a heckuva lot easier to cover than, say, the United States total intelligence budget, or whether the Iraqi study group's plan is workable, or how to save the middle class. Also, it is sure to draw viewers or reader, or for talk radio, listeners than any of the topics listed above.
But here we are at one of the many cross-roads moments where the press faces the road taken and the road not taken, and once again, the beaten path is beaten a little more.
Thank you Fox News. You have once again saved Christmas.
|
In today's edition of "Slate," David Greenberg traces the history behind the "War on Christmas." This all stems from the recent flak in the Seattle Airport where a Rabbi asked to have an "eight foot tall menorah" displayed among the Christmas trees that were on display. The airport instead removed the trees, reasoning that if the menorah went up, then every other religious group in the country would demand to have their religious symbols on display as well (similar reasoning, if you recall, to Senator Santorum's argument against gay marriage--you know, "if you allow homosexuals to marry, then...man on chicken love"). As it ended, the trees came back after the Rabbi was deluged by hate mail, death threats, and so on. Christmas saved.
But without a lot of coverage was the leaders of the pack--Fox News and this conjured up "problem" that isn't.
For instance, here is Bill O'Reilly on December 11:
...the war on Christmas continues. It's not as bad as last year, but it's still around, even if the far left press won't admit it.
Which is funny because two nights later, Chief Demagogue John Gibson praises the return of the Christmas trees, stating that the trees "are now all back up again thanks to the media frenzy that ensued..."
Last year, the "war on Christmas" was all Fox's was about, thanks in part to Gibson's book on the subject and "No Spinning" spinster Bill O'Reilly, who then claimed the war was all part of "the secular progressive movement" losing attempt to "marginalize Christmas"! And for Gibson, when he wasn't blabbering about it on his show (The Big Story with John Gibson), he was being interviewed on any number of Fox News shows, like this December 21, 2005 appearance on Hannity and Company (when did Colmes get bumped from the marquee?) under the title: JOHN GIBSON DEFENDS THE VERACITY OF THE SUPPOSED WAR ON CHRISTMAS. Gibson took the time to trumpet: "I say we won the war on Christmas" where Colmes retorts: "But 'war on Christmas' is a little bit exaggerated, isn't it?" and Gibson jabs: "No" and Colmes, in his infinite wisdom, responds: "All right." Now I see why he has been moved from the marquee.
Looking over a Lexis search, this "war on Christmas" is a popular news item, with the rest of the news universe following Fox's lead. But what a bunch of nonsense. Every year, on cue, countless hours of television news coupled with precious space on the newspage is wasted over a problem that does not exist. Why?
For conservatives, it has provided a nice break from the beating they have taken over the War on Iraq, scandal-rama, and the scarce presence of an agenda. For a couple of months, they are able to prove that they matter. And the rest of the "secular" media follows right in line. Why? When Fox News steps up on the soap box to decry the bogey man, imagine what could be accomplished if the remaining media simply ignored them?
But they can't. And they can't for two reasons:
First, we all know how easy it is for conservatives to cow the "mainstream media" into playing along with the "liberal" label. Although I don't think this is really it because conservatives--at least O'Reilly--will rip them anyhow.
The second reason, which fits, is this is a heckuva lot easier to cover than, say, the United States total intelligence budget, or whether the Iraqi study group's plan is workable, or how to save the middle class. Also, it is sure to draw viewers or reader, or for talk radio, listeners than any of the topics listed above.
But here we are at one of the many cross-roads moments where the press faces the road taken and the road not taken, and once again, the beaten path is beaten a little more.
Thank you Fox News. You have once again saved Christmas.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
From "The Hill"
Brian Lamb, head honcho over at C-SPAN, has sent a letter to incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking her to provide more options regarding the cameras in the House. For those who watch C-SPAN, you know that the camera is always trained on the person who speaking on the floor of the chamber. C-SPAN want that ability to pan the cameras and take reaction shots from those attending. It doesn't sound like Lamb to me. Reaction shots? The article has several errors. First, it claims that cameras were introduced into the House in 1979. What I think that the author means is cameras first went out to cable viewers who had access to C-SPAN in 1979. Cameras had been a feature in both chambers since the advent of the television itself. Second, the article notes that Lamb is asking Pelosi "...to roll back the three-decade old practice that put the House Speaker in charge of the cameras." That is also wrong. The control over the cameras is by the television technicians themselves, as written into the rules of the House. In 1984, Speaker of the House Tipp O'Neill brought a world of hurt on himself when he ordered the cameras to start panning an empty chamber to shed light in the dirty tricks crafted by Gingrich and other conservative Republicans. This whole event, mind you, could have been avoided had Brian Lamb chosen to inform his viewers that the House was in special orders speeches, and the whole place was virtually empty. Instead, he stayed mum and launched Gingrich into the political stratosphere. Hence it is bullocks whenever Lamb or anyone else at C-SPAN tell us that they are giving it to us straight when in fact the television cameras may be used to create a false sense of reality. Whose duty is it to square the record in these cases?
Second, which comes via "The Hill's" daily email "Tipsheet" is a story by Alexander Bolton, and it is a priceless one at that. On December 8, Democrats added a bill that would have given severance pay to Republican staffers who would be out on their ears right before Christmas. The Dems did it, as reported, because they remembered how horrible it was in 1994 when their staffers were tossed out of jobs with no support at all. The bill came to the floor late on December 8, and the Republican majority killed it. And the reason is simply priceless. Republican Representative Darrell Issa, from California, voted against the bill because it was "...one of those dark-of-the-night type pieces of legislation, and I am going to oppose it...it is not well thought out. It has not gone through the legislative process it should, and it is not a precedent we want to set haphazardly."
Nearly three years ago to the day, Republicans broke all kinds of procedural rules when they held a vote on the Medicare bill--normally a vote that lasts only 15 minutes--into a "three hour marathon" that lasted most of the night. Or how about the PATRIOT Act? The final bill was delivered to members of Congress around 5 or 6 in the morning and the vote for it was scheduled at 11 am the same day. Neither of these two things seemed to bother conservatives. Yet the difference here is in one they worked double time to help a wealthy benefactor--Big Pharma--and the other to bend over and take it from the administration. Here they were asked to provide some extra walk around money weeks before Christmas to the very staff who worked late into the night for these people, and they nothing. Give it up large for the House Republicans!
|
Second, which comes via "The Hill's" daily email "Tipsheet" is a story by Alexander Bolton, and it is a priceless one at that. On December 8, Democrats added a bill that would have given severance pay to Republican staffers who would be out on their ears right before Christmas. The Dems did it, as reported, because they remembered how horrible it was in 1994 when their staffers were tossed out of jobs with no support at all. The bill came to the floor late on December 8, and the Republican majority killed it. And the reason is simply priceless. Republican Representative Darrell Issa, from California, voted against the bill because it was "...one of those dark-of-the-night type pieces of legislation, and I am going to oppose it...it is not well thought out. It has not gone through the legislative process it should, and it is not a precedent we want to set haphazardly."
Nearly three years ago to the day, Republicans broke all kinds of procedural rules when they held a vote on the Medicare bill--normally a vote that lasts only 15 minutes--into a "three hour marathon" that lasted most of the night. Or how about the PATRIOT Act? The final bill was delivered to members of Congress around 5 or 6 in the morning and the vote for it was scheduled at 11 am the same day. Neither of these two things seemed to bother conservatives. Yet the difference here is in one they worked double time to help a wealthy benefactor--Big Pharma--and the other to bend over and take it from the administration. Here they were asked to provide some extra walk around money weeks before Christmas to the very staff who worked late into the night for these people, and they nothing. Give it up large for the House Republicans!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Leahy In Da House
If you have been watching C-SPAN this week, you will have noticed that a lot of new Democrat Chairpersons have been holding their own press conferences, and it isn't a coincidence that they have. The Democrats are stealing a page from the Republican media strategy playbook by holding press conferences every day in order to make the news every day, and since Congress has adjourned, there isn't members who can respond in a way that the Republicans could have prior to ending the 109th.
Leahy is at Georgetown Law School to inform all of us paying attention about the agenda of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the new term (although I am sort of surprised that this is not a joint-speech with House Judiciary Committee Conyers and wonder whether I should read anything into his absence?). Leahy promises more oversight and challenge to the administration's use of executive privilege. The administration had informally asserted executive privilege on behalf of nearly any executive branch official who had been summoned to testify. Traditionally, executive privilege was a power that only the president could assert. Early in Clinton's first term, Clinton tried and failed to assert executive privilege on behalf of Hillary in relation to the work she did on behalf of the Health Care reform task force. However, in W's first term, the privilege was extended to the VP over records pertaining to the energy task force. Given that the Republicans never challenged the assertion of the privilege on behalf of the attorney-general, or the Secretary or State, or the national security advisor, etc. We will see whether that leads to a new challenge before the Court.
Leahy tells us that AG Gonzalez will be before the Committee very soon, and he will not tolerate anyone who is summoned to appear showing up without answers and providing promises to get back to the Committee later. Leahy stated that no one ever got back to the Committee (although I wonder if they only got back to the majority?).
I have to say that I found one thing particularly interesting. There were questions mostly from reporters, and a number of reporters claimed to be working for publications I have not heard of, including one who works for a blog! Nonetheless, one gentlemen working with the Executive Intelligence Review (a publication that I do know) asked Leahy about signing statements, and for all the hullaballoo about signing statements in the last session of Congress, Leahy simply dodged answering the question. He made references to how the Congress was charged with lawmaking, and that was it. Nothing any more. It begs the question: Have Democrat outsiders persuaded Leahy that this is a power that Democrat presidents may use and thus it is best to allow the debate to stay out there in academic circles and nowhere else?
To my buddy who seems to get people jumping over the issue of the signing statement--how about dropping by Leahy's office and ask him, given Leahy's outrage last year, if he is planning on any substantive work on fencing in the president's use of the signing statement?
I am also surprised at how little Leahy said about his ability to make the administration turn over information. He was asked at least twice what he could do to make the administration comply with his commands. Once he said the Congress has power of the purse and confirmation powers, but didn't explain how these can work to force the president to bend. He also remarked about the subpoena power, but said little else. It could very well be that he was deliberately trying not to make news--for instance, it is clear that The Congress--either or both chambers--can cite recalcitrant executive branch officers with contempt of Congress, and clearly has in the past. But since this is high political drama, it could be that Leahy did not want tomorrow's headline to read: "LEAHY PREPARED TO HOLD PRESIDENT IN CONTEMPT.
|
Leahy is at Georgetown Law School to inform all of us paying attention about the agenda of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the new term (although I am sort of surprised that this is not a joint-speech with House Judiciary Committee Conyers and wonder whether I should read anything into his absence?). Leahy promises more oversight and challenge to the administration's use of executive privilege. The administration had informally asserted executive privilege on behalf of nearly any executive branch official who had been summoned to testify. Traditionally, executive privilege was a power that only the president could assert. Early in Clinton's first term, Clinton tried and failed to assert executive privilege on behalf of Hillary in relation to the work she did on behalf of the Health Care reform task force. However, in W's first term, the privilege was extended to the VP over records pertaining to the energy task force. Given that the Republicans never challenged the assertion of the privilege on behalf of the attorney-general, or the Secretary or State, or the national security advisor, etc. We will see whether that leads to a new challenge before the Court.
Leahy tells us that AG Gonzalez will be before the Committee very soon, and he will not tolerate anyone who is summoned to appear showing up without answers and providing promises to get back to the Committee later. Leahy stated that no one ever got back to the Committee (although I wonder if they only got back to the majority?).
I have to say that I found one thing particularly interesting. There were questions mostly from reporters, and a number of reporters claimed to be working for publications I have not heard of, including one who works for a blog! Nonetheless, one gentlemen working with the Executive Intelligence Review (a publication that I do know) asked Leahy about signing statements, and for all the hullaballoo about signing statements in the last session of Congress, Leahy simply dodged answering the question. He made references to how the Congress was charged with lawmaking, and that was it. Nothing any more. It begs the question: Have Democrat outsiders persuaded Leahy that this is a power that Democrat presidents may use and thus it is best to allow the debate to stay out there in academic circles and nowhere else?
To my buddy who seems to get people jumping over the issue of the signing statement--how about dropping by Leahy's office and ask him, given Leahy's outrage last year, if he is planning on any substantive work on fencing in the president's use of the signing statement?
I am also surprised at how little Leahy said about his ability to make the administration turn over information. He was asked at least twice what he could do to make the administration comply with his commands. Once he said the Congress has power of the purse and confirmation powers, but didn't explain how these can work to force the president to bend. He also remarked about the subpoena power, but said little else. It could very well be that he was deliberately trying not to make news--for instance, it is clear that The Congress--either or both chambers--can cite recalcitrant executive branch officers with contempt of Congress, and clearly has in the past. But since this is high political drama, it could be that Leahy did not want tomorrow's headline to read: "LEAHY PREPARED TO HOLD PRESIDENT IN CONTEMPT.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Hodge-Podge Tuesday
Last Friday's edition of "On the Media," Bob Garfield did an interview with journalists who cover the Supreme Court, and brought up the question once again of whether cameras should be allowed into the Court. It was a unanimous verdict (pardon the pun) to allow the cameras in. At no time did Garfield, or any of his guests, address the substantive reasons why cameras should remain outside. Here is Slate's Dahlia Lithwick:
They have good arguments and bad arguments for keeping cameras out. The bad arguments are we don't want to be recognized at the Safeway. That's not a good argument. The good arguments are once there's a camera trained on these attorneys, they're going to start barking like seals and acting goofy.
What of the ruination to the institution that seems to follow television cameras wherever they go? That cameras fail to provide context, that it favors process over substance, and that it generally attributes the large share of criminal activity to minorities--all empirical facts on local television and the judiciary.
On a different matter: I often skip right over the editorial section of the "Wall Street Journal," which is mostly loopy right-wing nonsense--no attempt to even take an intellectual approach to attacking Democrats and/or liberals. Mostly talk radio in written form. Last night, however, I decided to look through the editorial section and I am glad I did.
There was an editorial by Peter Kann on the problems with our media--or really, more of a plea to our press to at least try to act like the important institution the founding father's thought it was. Kann reminds us that it was Thomas Jefferson who said, when approached with the choice of a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he would choose the latter. I am willing to bet he wouldn't make that same statement today.
Kann identifies 10 negative trends in our media--all of which are the most typical problems identified by those who study the press and politics:
|
They have good arguments and bad arguments for keeping cameras out. The bad arguments are we don't want to be recognized at the Safeway. That's not a good argument. The good arguments are once there's a camera trained on these attorneys, they're going to start barking like seals and acting goofy.
What of the ruination to the institution that seems to follow television cameras wherever they go? That cameras fail to provide context, that it favors process over substance, and that it generally attributes the large share of criminal activity to minorities--all empirical facts on local television and the judiciary.
On a different matter: I often skip right over the editorial section of the "Wall Street Journal," which is mostly loopy right-wing nonsense--no attempt to even take an intellectual approach to attacking Democrats and/or liberals. Mostly talk radio in written form. Last night, however, I decided to look through the editorial section and I am glad I did.
There was an editorial by Peter Kann on the problems with our media--or really, more of a plea to our press to at least try to act like the important institution the founding father's thought it was. Kann reminds us that it was Thomas Jefferson who said, when approached with the choice of a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he would choose the latter. I am willing to bet he wouldn't make that same statement today.
Kann identifies 10 negative trends in our media--all of which are the most typical problems identified by those who study the press and politics:
- The blurring of lines between journalism and entertainment, or the rise of infotainment;
- The blurring of lines between news and opinion;
- The blending of news and advertising (video news releases and advertorials);
- Pack journalism;
- The focus on conflict to the detriment of consensus;
- The tendency towards negativity;
- The fascination with the bizarre, the perverse, and the pathological (or favoring soft news over hard news);
- Social orthodoxy or political correctness;
- The short attention span
- The failure to recognize the press is a political institution.