Signing Statements and other Bushit

I picked up my copy of the Constitution or, as Bush puts it, a worthless piece of paper this afternoon. It's an interesting read, one I'd highly recommend for any supporter of the current Administration and Congress. It's shorter than a financial statement I have to read for a client visit on Monday although it uses a few words a bit too large to fit into our current President's vocabulary. Two words that do not make an appearance in the document are "signing statement."

What does appear is that all legislative power rests in the Congress. Bush, despite his six hundred signing statement objections to laws the Congress has passed, has no authority to make or to ignore law. Article one section seven describes Bush's only avenue to object to legislation, an avenue he's never travelled, the veto. So it appears the useless pieces of paper are his signing statements.

Of course, he's backing his signing statements up with Article II which defines the powers of the President. Reading Article II, I find no evidence for an allowance for signing statements or any of the principles of the Unitary Executive, the Bush doctrine that all the President really needs is a crown and his word to run the country. It does state that he shall take care that the laws are executed faithfully, in direct contradiction to Plamegate, the K-Street Corruption, Abu Ghraib and a litany of other violations that end within or very close to the inner circle of the Bush administration.

It's an interesting little read, our Constitution. Originalists would have you ignore it because it is not a concrete document and has very little to do with what the Originalists really want to attain. It's a beautiful, fluid little definition of a government unlike any the world had known before that time. Reading it critically will open your eyes to the abuses of Congress and the Administration in its name.

It is not, as Bush maintains, a worthless piece of paper. It's the definition of our nation.