The headline reads: "ABA: Bush Violating Constitution." It's not until deeper into the article that the reader discovers that the American Bar Association is opposed to Bush violating the Constitution. They certainly haven't been too vocal in criticizing other presidents, or judges or congressmen for that matter, for lapses in fidelity to the Constitution. In fact, the organization actually celebrates Roe v. Wade, a decision based not on the Constitution but judicial whim, and demands that the government ignore the Second Amendment.
The American Bar Association is a political advocacy group. It gets religion on the Constitution when its political opponents get power. In that way, it's no different than a great number of "conservatives" you may know.
As to the ABA's charge against George W. Bush: it's probably true. If not on what the ABA cites (the use of "signing statements" to disregard parts of laws), then certainly on campaign-finance reform (First Amendment), No Child Left Behind (Tenth Amendment), and the usurpation of Congress's war-making powers (Article 1, Section 8). On that last one, Congress itself is probably a lot more to blame. But there's enough blame to go around.
Perhaps 43 is just following the example of 41--or the examples of 42, 40, 39, 38, 37, etc. for that matter. Every president in our lifetimes has violated the Constitution in numerous ways. The rap once was that Republicans didn't care for the First and Fourth Amendments, while Democrats disregarded the Second and Tenth Amendments. Now it seems that both parties, perhaps as an attempt at bipartisanship, have come together to ignore the entire document.
It's "antiquated." It's a "living document." It's constantly "evolving." Those are some of the tired excuses the Constitution's enemies make for jettisoning it. But when leaders of the rival party foresake parts of the Constitution that the "living document" crowd happens to favor, then the choir sings from a very different sheet of music. This is what is occuring with the American Bar Association. It rings hollow when a group committed to the transformation of the Constitution through legal legerdemain, rather than the amendment process, slams a political enemy for doing what it regularly advocates. Oh well, that's politics.
An old joke among supporters of Barry Goldwater posited that upon their candidate taking the presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren would respond by instructing Goldwater to now raise his left arm as well and then tell the newly sworn-in president: "You're under arrest." In other words, a president who actually preserved, protected, and defended the Constitution would be more offensive to liberals like Warren, and the ABA, than presidents who act as though it no longer exists.
Just wait for the scathing reports the ABA releases when America has a president who abides by the Constitution. A man can hope, no?
Does anyone have a good argument in support of signing statements? It seems to proceed from a view of the constitution that pretends the president's veto power doesn't exist, just as I think the "living constitution" of the liberals proceeds from a view that pretends the amendment process doesn't exist.
Nice point Obi. I find it crazy that the ABA is angry about the signing statements. Instead othey should be angry about the unconstitutional laws Bush is complaining about, or at least angry about a president who is willing to sign what he thinks is unconstitutional legislation. Topsy turvy.
I think it was Joe Sobran who quipped "If a president actually obeyed the constitution, he'd quickly be impeached for that"
