Powerful op-ed in the New York Times about the fact that President Bush has yet to veto a single bill, instead relying upon 750 “Presidential signing statements” to argue that he does not have to enforce the laws that Congress passes (with props to a Boston Globe article by Charlie Savage that made this case). Among the many things not to like about a presidency, this one is pretty far up the list.
This is something about which I’ve never heard before. It’s one of the most frightening elements of an administration gone awry that I’ve encountered thus far. Has this been part of the constitution since the beginning. I found reference in Jackson and Lincoln’s time that indicated a sense of presidential questions about constitutionality rather than the current effect of assuming absolute power without recourse.