Signing Statements Strike a Nerve

There's no doubt that President Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements to flout the will of Congress has fired up policy wonks, constitutional lawyers and other inside-the-Beltway types.

But is this one of those issues that the average voter couldn't care less about?

Well, judging from the recent outpouring of editorials at small- and medium-sized newspapers across the country, there may be something about violating the Constitution that riles up Americans no matter where they live or where they stand on the political spectrum.

Bush's use of signing statements finally -- and briefly -- made the headlines last week, when a bipartisan American Bar Association task force dramatically established how the president's assertion of his right to ignore certain statutes passed by Congress undermines the rule of law and the constitutional system of separation of powers.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) then proposed a bill that would give Congress the ability to challenge those statements in federal court.

For background, see my July 24 column, An Imminent Threat (to the Constitution) and my July 25 column, Congress v. Bush . On June 27, I wrote a piece for NiemanWatchdog.org about the lackluster news coverage of the issue and the many (still) unanswered questions.

But editorial writers around the country know an outrage when they see one.

The Appleton (Wisc.) Post-Crescent : "A Republican senator challenging the president's power is striking a blow for our way of government. . . .

"Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, introduced a bill last week that would allow Congress to sue the president for an unconstitutional use of signing statements. . . .

"His bill would give Congress -- representing our interests -- the chance to challenge any president who tries to subvert legislation on specious grounds.

"This is protection that our government needs."

The Yakima (Wash.) Herald : "Too many times during this administration, we have been concerned about what appears to be an attitude that, 'We'll decide what the rules are; otherwise, they don't apply to us.'