Signing Statements. What A Difference A Year Makes. Last year Patrick Leahy, as a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee said,

This President has also used signing statements to challenge laws banning torture, on affirmative action and prohibiting the censorship of scientific data. In fact, time and again, this President has stood before the American people, signed laws enacted by their representatives in Congress, while all along crossing his fingers behind his back. And, while this President proudly boasts being the first modern President to have never vetoed a bill, he has cleverly used his signing statements as a de facto line-item veto to cherry-pick which laws he will enforce in a manner not contemplated by our Constitution.

Under our constitutional system of government, when Congress passes a bill and the President signs it into law, that should be the end of the story. It is the law of the land unless and until repealed by Congress or invalidated by the courts. For this reason, there are grave and inherent dangers to the extensive and unprecedented use of signing statements.

When the President uses signing statements to unilaterally rewrite the laws enacted by the people’s representatives in Congress, he creates doubt about what the rule of law means in our Nation.

Bush was breaking the law a year ago and there was no investigation. This year, the Congress asked the GAO to investigate.

The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions were not executed as written.

In one case the Pentagon did not include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.

Bush is laughing all the way to the bank. Speaking of banks, have you seen Inside Man, directed by Spike Lee?  ¶ 6:48 PM