Spurning Congressional Oversight

Lately, it seems the Prez has been a bit more forthcoming in his intentions about what his administration is up to. I don't know if it's hubris (which would be amazing considering his low poll numbers and job approval ratings) or what, but I guess we should appreciate the candor. Earlier this week he told us that he had no intention of leaving Iraq. And a couple of months ago, when he signed the John-McCain-sponsored anti-torture amendment, he issued a signing statement to the effect that he'd ignore the law when he felt he had to. On Thursday, Charlie Savage at The Boston Globe reported that Bush has once again essentially told Congress, "You're not the boss of me." The Globe headline minced no words: "Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement." Although he signed the renewal of the Patriot Act on March 9 with a huge flourish and a large audience, he issued the signing statement that accompanied it a bit more quietly. That statement addressed only the provisions requiring Congressional oversight, which Bush made clear he'd ignore as he saw fit. If he finds it inconvenient to keep Congress in the loop for what his administration is doing, he'll just cut them right out of it. Does the White House not subscribe to the common interpretation of three co-equal branches of government?

Perhaps the most distressing detail of Savage's article is this sentence: "Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress." This is potentially a Constitutional crisis, and all Congress can do about it is grumble!? They've got no spine. They won't get their backs up for our governing principles. Most of the Dems ran away screaming from Feingold's resolution to censure the President until they discovered some public support for the idea. We need leadership that will stand up to the President when he steps outside the traditional bounds of executive power. It's looking more and more like we have nowhere to turn in the political process.