from SLATE's news summary:>Yesterday's [Washingon] Post noted President Bush's penchant for "signing statements," which give the White House interpretation of a law being, well, signed. The idea is to have challenges to a law on paper and thus give the administration a potential leg up in future court cases. The signing statements are an attempt to "address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify," said one presidential historian. He added that they are "also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress."
>... what the WP didn't pick up on—and what nobody else seems to either: The White House issued just such a signing statement—an apparent attempt at nullification—for Sen. McCain's anti-torture amendment. The statement says: > " The executive branch shall construe [the amendment] in a manner > consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise > the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with > the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in > achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President ... of > protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." >The president acceded to the McCain amendment just a few weeks ago and ended up praising it. Anybody care to ask the White House whether, given the above language, it considers the government absolutely bound by McCain's ban?< -- Jim Devine "The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side." -- James Baldwin
