June 27, 2006
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
from - RSA
I'm always happy to learning something new about the art of deception with numbers. From the most recent White House press briefing, here's Tony Snow:
But, for instance, during the course of the Clinton administration, there were 110 signing statements -- I'm sorry, 105 signing statements, 110 at this point in the Bush administration.
What's interesting about this is that Tony is being just a little bit coy about what he's counting. According to the Boston Globe, Bush has challenged over 750 laws; according to Tony's count, these challenges came in the form of 110 signing statements. How does Clinton compare? His signing statements objected to 140 over his entire eight years.
Posted by RSA at June 27, 2006 05:57 PM
Well, this doesn't quite settle who is being dishonest with numbers. The Globe article was too long for me to read this morning, but I wonder if it tells you where the 750 number comes from, and how it was done in the 600+ cases that did not use signing statements?
|
Posted by smijer on June 28, 2006 07:03 AM Link to comment |
Yeah, I probably should have pointed to an article by John Dean in FindLaw:
By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.
So apparently a single signing statement can be attached to a complicated law, raising multiple challenges.
|
|
Posted by RSA on June 28, 2006 12:03 PM Link to comment |
That makes more sense... Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
Posted by smijer on June 28, 2006 12:33 PM Link to comment |
Testifying for the Bush administration, Michelle Boardman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the US Department of Justice, said that signing statements serve a "legitimate and important function" and are not an abuse of power."Congress should not fear signing statements, but welcome the openness they provide," she said. "The president must execute the law faithfully, but the Constitution is the highest law of the land. If the Constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose,"? she said.
Man, ain't this great! Can he choose between the two? Can he say to himself, "I think I like this law a little more than I like the constitution."
I am learning more about our sacred system of government under Bush the Son than I ever learned under Slick Willy.
Remember the "stroke of the pen / law of the land" comment?
That is kid stuff nowadays ain't it?
|
|
Posted by Buck on June 28, 2006 04:06 PM Link to comment |
If the Constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose.
Oh, my goodness. I'm no legal scholar, but I thought that everyone with an interest in politics and the law, especially someone working for the Justice Department, would know that the Supreme Court has that responsibility. (That is, I'm thinking of Marbury v. Madison, which established that the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution means.)
|
|
Posted by RSA on June 28, 2006 04:55 PM Link to comment |
RSA - yeah, too bad GW wasn't paying attention in Civics I. I wonder if he knows about a thing called a "veto" that can be used if he doesn't think the law is constitutional as written.
|
|
Posted by smijer on June 28, 2006 07:46 PM Link to comment |
I wonder if he knows about a thing called a "veto" that can be used if he doesn't think the law is constitutional as written.Why veto a law that you don't intend to follow anyway?
|
|
Posted by Buck on June 29, 2006 07:54 AM Link to comment |
