“A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant”

Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "All legislative powers…" Section. 7. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. "If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections…" The plain meaning of the text is really very clear. But George Bush, being "the Decider," has decided it doesn't mean what it says. He claims he, as President, has the authority to pick and choose bits of laws passed by Congress he can simply nullify and ignore, and nevermind the "All" part of legislation the Constitution has assigned exclusively to Congress, and that there is a formal constitutional process for addressing any objections he may have, which has been clearly spelled out. Dan Froomkin has a post on "Bush’s signing statements: Constitutional crisis or empty rhetoric?" Arlen Specter is holding hearings on the matter, reports Laurie Kellman for AP. She quotes Specter, "There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview," Specter, R-Pa., said. "It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," he added. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick." (If only Arlen Specter was a guy whose words could be relied upon as having some association to his actual behavior.) Froomkin wonders why, with the exception of Charlie Savage for the Boston Globe, the DC establishment press has displayed little curiosity about the issue. The Declaration of Independence addressed this sort of issue when it arose once before: "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."