Sherry Chandler

From the Boston Globe (emphasis mine):

WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

“Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief,” Bush said. “The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq” or “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.

Link via Juan Cole.

According to Think Progress, Bush has signed 151 of these statements challenging 1149 provisions of laws. Other provisions in the Defense Bill that Bush will ignore include:

…a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents…

Bush seems to be trying to tie us up in Iraq so that, with a change of administration there can be no change of policy. He also continues to try to set the Executive Branch above the law. You should click through to the Boston Globe story to see the photo of Bush with Cheney smirking in the background. It’s sort of creepy.

My benchmark for these matters of executive power and privilege is usually to point out that what this President sets as precedent, future presidents will take as privilege. And do you want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain or Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee to be able to set themselves above the law?

It’s not enough to hunker down and wait for Bush to be replaced by somebody more sane (and on the subject of war I’m not sure I’d put John McCain in that category). I think we need to be fighting some of this stuff pretty hard right now. The man still has a year in office.

See also The Sideshow on the bottom line implication of what Bush has done:

Bush has now declared that he has the power to decide whether Congress can control the purse strings. He also says they can’t stop him from building permanent bases in Iraq, a tacit admission that he’s been lying all along about not building them. He also says Congress can’t stop him from stealing Iraq’s oil.

Or a return to another older culture war.

Back last October, we had a conversation here about the claim that Portsmouth, Ohio had stolen an historical artifact called the Indian Head Rock from the Ohio River, which actually lies, mostly, in Kentucky.

The story was that a group of volunteer divers from a private company had lifted this 8-ton boulder, covered with 19^th century graffiti and possibly some Native American petroglyphs, from the Ohio where it had been under water since the river was dammed in the 1920s. The rock was delivered to Portsmouth for display in their cultural center.

This photo, by T. W. Allen of the Portsmouth Daily Times, shows the Indian Head Rock currently housed in Portsmouth’s city service department’s garage.

It was then that Tanya Pullin cried rocknapping. Pullin is a Kentucky legislator from Portsmouth’s sister city, South Shore, Kentucky.

Now Charlie Whitt, our South Shore correspondent, has logged in with a new chapter in the story. Seems it’s gone all the way to the Kentucky General Assembly (which, apparently, has time on its hands). From the Portsmouth Daily Times:

In a resolution from the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, posted Jan. 7, part of the document reads, “Whereas, the citizens of Kentucky believe that removing Indian Head Rock to Portsmouth, Ohio for display shows disrespect to this country’s Native American heritage; and Whereas, Kentucky’s Native American Heritage Commission voted on November 1, 2007 for a resolution calling for the return of Indian Head Rock to its original location; now, therefore, Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: Section 1. This honorable body condemns the removal of Indian Head Rock from its original location on the floor of the Ohio River to Portsmouth, Ohio, and requests that it be returned to its original location. Section 2. The clerk of the House of Representatives is directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the city of Portsmouth, Mr. James D. Kalb, mayor, 728 Second Street, Portsmouth, OH 45662.”

…

Rep. Reginald Meeks, D-Louisville, who is a member of Kentucky’s Native American Heritage Commission, is sponsoring the resolution in the assembly.

Meeks also has been quoted as saying if legal means does not bring the rock back to Kentucky, “we may have to send a raiding party into Portsmouth.”

In the old days, the Native Americans, with some help from the British, raided out of Ohio into Kentucky. That didn’t work out too good for them. I think maybe the last time Kentucky raided into Ohio was during the Civil War. That didn’t work out too good for us either.

South Shore Commissioner David Piatt says the lege is getting a little ahead of itself:

“Mayor (James) Kalb contacted the city of South Shore 24 hours after the rock was removed and offered it back to the city of South Shore,” said City Commissioner David Piatt. “(South Shore) Mayor Cheryl Moore and I talked with Kalb, and he offered the rock to us on several occasions, and we just didn’t have a place for it. It is very fragile, and until we have a place for it, we know Portsmouth is taking good care of it for us.”

Kalb said it may be true it legally belongs to the state of Kentucky, but he thinks with all the Ohio carvings on it, it really wouldn’t make sense to the people in Kentucky to want it. Kalb said the decision as to the placement of the rock probably will be made in the courts. But he has an idea what might make the best compromise.

“I talked with the mayor (Moore) and the commissioner (Piatt), and I have told them I would be pleased to display it near where it came out of the water, and to put a plaque on it that reads, ‘on permanent loan from the state of Kentucky,” Kalb said. “I have sent numerous letters to state officials, and I haven’t heard back…”

But looks to me like the lege is saying the rock doesn’t belong to South Shore either but should be put back in the river under water. Not sure how that could be accomplished at this point. We’re not talking about some gentle stream here. The Ohio River is a force to be reckoned with. Getting the rock out was a feat; putting it back where it was looks like a folly.

But we all know, to our sorrow, that administrations looking to start a war aren’t interested in real intelligence.

Thanks, Charlie.