BCT Editorial – 7/4/06

This page was last updated on July 9, 2006.

By the book; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 4, 2006. This editorial was in the print edition of the Times but was not on the website.

This editorial occupied most of the editorial column in the op-ed section, so laziness got the better of me and I chose not to transcribe the editorial below.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Supreme Court reins in Bush administration’s abuse of the rule of law

[RWC] So read the subtitle of the subject editorial. That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the thrust of the editorial.

Fortunately for me, the editorial rattled off most of the same anti-Bush talking points as the July 2^nd Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial entitled “The court speaks / An imperial presidency is checked -- for now”. As a result, read the PG editorial and my critique and you have most of my comments about the Times editorial.

One thing the Times editorial blathered about was that President Bush issues signing statements regarding bills he signs into law and how this is an example of President Bush’s “abuse of the rule of law.” After reading the editorial, you’d probably be surprised to learn President Bush didn’t invent the signing statement. Presidents at least as far back as Andrew Jackson have issued signing statements, though their frequency has ticked up a lot in the last 25 years. In a memo prepared for the Clinton administration entitled “The Legal Significance Of Presidential Signing Statements,” Clinton appointee Asst. Attorney General Walter Dellinger concluded, “Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create ‘legislative history’ remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes.” The memo also cited several Supreme Court rulings supporting signing statements.

The editorial also tried to trick us into believing President Bush issued nearly six times as many signing statements as he has. By saying “such statements accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress,” the editorial clearly wants us to believe President Bush has issued 750 signing statements. In truth, the number is approximately 130. How do you get from 130 to 750? Most bills include multiple statutes, so by issuing a single signing statement you can address many statutes. How many signing statements did President Clinton issue? Approximately 105. That compares to approximately 146 for President Bush #1 and 71 for President Reagan. To be fair, not all signing statements “are created equal,” so doing a straight number comparison may not be an accurate representation of the types of signing statements issued by these presidents.