• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Chapter OneIntroduction
When Governor George W. Bush was campaigning for thepresidency, he appeared on the ABC Sunday morning talk show, “ThisWeek with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.” This was in earlyJanuary 2000, and he was being asked a number of questions abouthow a President George W. Bush would govern. One question, fromGeorge Will, was aimed at campaign finance reform.After asking Governor Bush whether he thought the president hada constitutional duty to independently interpret the Constitution, whichGovernor Bush agreed he could, Will asked him if he would vetoMcCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, the two campaign finance reformbills in Congress because they unconstitutionally infringed upon freespeech. Governor Bush did not hesitate in telling Will that he wouldveto the bill due to its infringement upon free speech.
1
 Flash forward to March 27, 2002, and President George W. Bush isfixing his signature onto the “Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Billof 2002,” 
2
and noting that, while not perfect, it will “improve thecurrent system for financing federal campaigns.” 
3
George Will notedthe “stealthy” manner in which he signed the bill, and then noted withbitter disdain that “…[It] is his job to defend the Constitution…” and tothose who filed suit to block it, Will noted that “… someone has to do
 
Chapter One--Introduction2his [President’s] job when he will not.” 
4
Byron York, writing for the “National Review,” noted that Bush could have used “something calledthe signing statement, which presidents have used in the past to takepublic positions on bills about which they have reservations, but havechosen to sign.” York argued when President Reagan signed Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction legislation, he publicly disapproved of unconstitutional provisions which the Supreme Court later agreed within the decision,
Bowsher v Synar 
.
5
By scurrying out of town without apublic statement, the president in effect cut himself off from thatavenue.
6
 The president did issue a signing statement, only one that was notdone in a formal bill signing ceremony which York referred to. WhenPresident Bush issued his signing statement, he noted that there weresignificant constitutional problems with the bill. Bush argued:Certain provisions present seriousconstitutional concerns. In particular, H.R.2356 goes farther than I originally proposed bypreventing all individuals, not just unions andcorporations, from making donations topolitical parties in connection with Federalelections. I believe individual freedom toparticipate in elections should be expanded,not diminished; and when individual freedomsare restricted, questions arise under the FirstAmendment. I also have reservations aboutthe constitutionality of the broad ban on issueadvertising, which restrains the speech of a
 
Chapter One--Introduction3wide variety of groups on issues of publicimport in the months closest to an election. Iexpect that the courts will resolve theselegitimate legal questions as appropriate underthe law.
7
 The fact that President Bush gave lukewarm support to the bill (hedid not contact McCain personally upon signing it) and his paststatements on the matter clearly suggested that the president was notin favor of the bill. The language of the signing statement may helpthe president rectify his signature on the bill with his public statementson the matter. True, he did sign it—president’s are often confrontedwith bills, whether it be appropriations bills or those with tremendouspublic support ( as was the case with the bill he signed) that theyreluctantly sign. However, this does not render the president withoutoptions. In this case, President Bush could instruct the JusticeDepartment to not defend the law against court challenges, assuggested by Constitutional Law Scholars Akhil Reed Amar and VikramDavid Amar.
8
This would enable President Bush to both support thepopular campaign finance reform legislation and hold true to his earlierpromise of not infringing upon First Amendment free speech rights.Whether the President does this remains to be seen.This dissertation project is the first systematic study of thepresidential signing statement. It represents an interest that I wasdrawn to early in graduate school when I finished a research paper on
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...