ACLU Applauds House Judiciary’s Probe into Administration’s (alleged) Power Grab
Posted on February 1, 2007
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today commended the House Judiciary Committee for holding its first hearing of the 110th Congress to examine President Bush’s use of presidential “signing statements.†Since taking office, President Bush has issued such statements affecting more than 750 laws, often claiming a right to not enforce laws passed by Congress.
“When Congress sends a law to the president for signature it is not asking for his comments. The Constitution doesn’t provide for the president to cherry pick which laws - or which parts of the laws - he will enforce. The Founding Fathers of our country designed a system that works when Congress writes the laws and the president implements them,†said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The president needs to respect the separation of powers.â€
The ACLU, an organization that claims to support the “Bill of Rights”, an organization that “cherry picks” which Amendments it will champion and which it will ignore, hypocritically condemns the Bush Administration for allegedly doing the same thing.
The ACLU would never think of using the Judicial Branch, rather than the Legislative Branch, to effect changes in the Constitution and various States Laws. Sheesh!
Article II of the Constitution clearly states the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.†In most cases, President Bush’s signing statements have said he will refuse to enforce part of a law because it conflicts with his extraordinary claims of executive authority. The statements have covered numerous issues, including a congressional ban on the use of torture, affirmative action rules, protection for the integrity of scientific research and whistleblower protections. Such steps, the ACLU noted, defy the constitutional powers of Congress, and undermine the system of checks and balances.
In December 2006, President Bush issued a signing statement regarding H.R.6407 , the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. The act reiterated the decades-long prohibition on opening First Class mail of domestic origin without a warrant. An existing regulation allows for the opening of mail without a warrant only in narrowly defined cases where the Postal Inspector believes there is a credible threat that the package contains dangerous material like bombs. The president’s signing statement suggests that he is assuming broader authority to open mail without a warrant.
President Bush is not the first President to use “signing statements”. Indeed, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton all used them.
I haven’t found anything indicating the ACLU opposed the use of signing statements by those Presidents.
President Bush has definitely increased the use of these statements but in light of the fact that he hasn’t vetoed any of the Bills he is attaching the statements to, he apparently agrees with the Bills but will not allow them to interfere with the GWOT.
Of course, most of us know what the ACLU thinks of the GWOT.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “ACLU Applauds House Judiciary’s Probe into Administration’s (alleged) Power Grab”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Your claim of hypocrisy is wrong for two reasons.
1. The ACLU is not bound by the bill of rights, but the government is. The government must obey bill of rights, but the ACLU is under no obligation to undertake the defense of all of them. There are plenty of organizations amongst whom they can be divvied up.
2. It is well understood that both the judicial and legislative branches affect the law in this country, so there’s nothing wrong with the ACLU using either or both. The job of the executive branch is simply to execute the law to the best of its ability.
Signing statements are a good thing. There are so many laws in this country that it’s not unusual for a legal matter to be murky, so it’s good to know how the President interprets the laws. Those interpretations give you a good indication of how he will execute those laws.
That’s exactly the problem. Some of his interpretations contradict legislation so directly that it’s hard to see them as anything other than defiance.
Most of the disputed statements involve legislation that he believes limits his constitutional war powers. If he believes that so strongly, he should veto the legislation. The executive branch has some leeway to interpret questionable matters of law and the clear, undisputed right to reject bad laws.
No matter how low his ratings might get, congress is bitterly divided. His vetoes would stand, yet this president has consistently chosen the questionable route. It’s really hard to imagine a virtuous reason for doing so.
Your claim of hypocrisy is wrong for two reasons.
1. The ACLU is not bound by the bill of rights, but the government is. The government must obey bill of rights, but the ACLU is under no obligation to undertake the defense of all of them.
The ACLU is a legal organization of lawyers that are bound by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution as well as State and Federal laws.
If one were to do an exhaustive search, I imagine they could find examples of the ACLU’s involvement with ALL the amendments, at one time or another.
2. It is well understood that both the judicial and legislative branches affect the law in this country, so there’s nothing wrong with the ACLU using either or both.
The problem with that thinking is that the Legislative Branch write the laws and the Judicial branch adjudicates the law.
The problem arises when the ACLU uses the Judicial Branch to effect law by judicial fiat rather than using the Legislative Branch. That’s not representative government.
The executive branch has some leeway to interpret questionable matters of law and the clear, undisputed right to reject bad laws.
And that differs from our courts, how?
loboinok: Jeff has it correct. While you, I and the ACLU are bound by local,
state and fedreral laws, we are not bound by the constitution and bill of rights.
Those documents grant us rights and liberties which are totally optional on our
part, but are not optional at all on the part of the government to give them to us.
Also, the ACLU is not a legal organization of lawyers. I think you will find that
very few of it’s members are lawyers. And in fact, many of the lawyers used by
the ACLU are volunteers and are not employeed by the ACLU.
Personally I cannot see why the aclu has not been charged with sedition or worse. This group of lawyers has done everything in their power to attack the U.S. and void our right to protect our border and our security. This is simply the next step. I can guarantee you that if a law was passed outlawing abortion, and the President refused to enforce it, they would be cheering for him, yet when he uses his CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED POWERS to protect the homeland, he is attacked. I am sorry people, but the aclu is hell bent on tearing this country apart from the inside, in hopes of a socialist country replacing it, and I for one will NOT allow that to happen. As for “most of the lawyers used by the aclu are volunteers and are not employed by the aclu”, it does not matter. Nor does it matter if they are “bound by the bill of rights” or not, when they sue the government they are attacking the bill of rights! You see, to them porn and vulgarity are “free speech”, but my religious views are not. Abortion is a “choice”, but my opposition to abortion is illegal. Get the picture?
Those documents grant us rights and liberties…
Those documents grant us nothing of the sort.
Those documents outline our Natural Rights and are restrictive to the governments, both State and Federal.
Also, the ACLU is not a legal organization of lawyers. I think you will find that
very few of it’s members are lawyers. And in fact, many of the lawyers used by
the ACLU are volunteers and are not employeed by the ACLU.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a major American non-profit organization with headquarters in New York City, whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States”. It works through litigation, legislation, and community education.[1] The ACLU reported over 500,000 members at the end of 2005.
Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been influential in the evolution of U.S. constitutional law. The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk.
The ACLU periodically receives court awarded legal fees.
Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies,
The ACLU has its national headquarters located in New York City. The organization does most of its work through locally based affiliates, organized into fifty chapters. The chapters generally correspond to state lines, but California has three affiliates, Pennsylvania has two, and The Dakotas share one. These affiliates maintain a certain amount of autonomy from the national organization, and are able to work independently from each other. Many of the ACLU’s cases originate from the local level and are handled by lawyers from the local affiliates.
Affiliates (the state organizations) are the basic unit of the ACLU’s organization. In a twenty-month period beginning January 2004, the ACLU’s New Jersey chapter, to take one example, was involved in fifty-one cases according to their annual report — thirty-five cases in state courts, and sixteen in federal court. They provided legal representation in thirty-three of those cases, and served as amicus in the remaining eighteen. They listed forty-four volunteer attorneys who assisted them in those cases.
I think it is clear that the ACLU is a “legal organization”.
You as a “member”, may not be a lawyer, but it is made up of lawyers, none the less.
You’re completely correct, Lobo. You also clarified what I was trying to say.
Yes, the constitution and the bill of rights are laws, so we are all officially bound by them. However, they don’t place any restrictions on private individuals and organizations. That’s all I was trying to say.
Sure, but it’s not like they’re obligated to rotate through them or anything. They can take as many or as few cases as they want. The executive branch, on the other hand, must obey every single letter of the consitution.
The Judicial Branch can only effect the law when there is a question over whether the law has been correctly interpreted. If the people disagree with how the judiciary interpreted the original law(s), all they have to do is amend them to be more clear. The ability of the judiciary to “legislate” is vastly overstated on this site.
That’s a good question and I’m not qualified to answer it precisely. I’ll take my best stab at it though.
I think the primary difference is that the judiciary is interpreting the laws to settle a matter between two or more other parties. The executive branch is frequently interpreting on its own behalf. Obviously there’s a conflict of interest there, so the executive branch should be limited to well-established interpretations. If no such interpretation exists on a given matter, they should seek clarification before proceeding based on the questionable interpretation.