A Bag of Assholes

Sometimes you just have to wonder. A few days ago the American Bar Association (ABA) released the report of a task force convened to consider the use of presidential signing statements in relation to the separation of powers doctrine. The blue-ribbon panel comprised 10 of the top legal minds on constitutional law in the country, including conservatives and liberals, and Republicans and Democrats. According to ABA President Michael Greco, the panel's aim was to "...examine the changing role of presidential signing statements, in which U.S. presidents articulate their views of provisions in newly enacted laws, attaching statements to the new legislation before forwarding it to the Federal Register. The task force will also consider whether such statements conflict with express statutory language or congressional intent". The findings and recommendations of the panel were unanimous. A lengthy report, it concludes:

(X-posted here and here)

"...the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress"

Translated into non-legalistic parlance, the statement means the president shouldn't sign a bill into law and then attach a post-it saying, in effect, "fuck you, I'll do what I want". In order to curb that sort of unconstitutional power grab:

"...the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact legislation enabling the President, Congress, or other entities or individuals, to seek judicial review, to the extent constitutionally permissible, in any instance in which the President claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or interprets such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and urges Congress and the President to support a judicial resolution of the President's claim or interpretation."

In other words, having signed a bill into law, and attaching a note saying, "fuck you, I'll do what I want", there needs to be a check in the system to ensure the President can't also add, "P.S. there's not a damn thing you can do about it".

The report is careful to say that it considers the issue of presidential signing statements broadly, and should not be construed as focusing exclusively on the actions of the current president. Lawyers! The fact of the matter is that the report is most definitely about the cynical, constitution-busting shenanigans of the Bush administration, and remedies to prevent the next dictator from adopting the same tactics. As the panel notes, "To be sure, it was the number and nature of the current President's signing statements which generated the formation of the Task Force and compelled our recommendations". Summed across all administrations prior to Bush, presidents have used signing statements to question aspects of laws they signed fewer than 600 times. During his 5.5 year tenure, Bush has used this mechanism on more than 800 occasions, all before ever exercising his constitutional responsibility to veto legislation that he considers in violation of constitution.

Most alarming, the specific nature of these signing statements is qualitatively different - and demonstrably more damaging to our system of government - than in any era of history prior to Bush. Whereas earlier presidents have used signing statements to urge congress to consider aspects of bills that might be ambiguous, or to identify potential conflicts between executive and legislative authority, in only a small handful of cases have prior presidents (both Democrat and Republican) issued signing statements suggesting that circumstances could arise in which certain provisions of a bill might be unenforceable. In stark contrast, in hundreds of instances, Bush's signing statements express the intent to simply disregard the clear intent of congress, effectively saying "fuck you, I'll do what I want". Moreover, this administration has been uniquely aggressive in amending signing statements to bills that have the effect of blocking congressional access to the information it would need to determine if the administration's actions are legal. The exact same wording appears over and over again, indicating that congressional provisions calling for regular reports from the executive branch on matters like national security and domestic surveillance, ""would be construed in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties." In other words, "fuck you, I'll do what I want, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it".

So you have to wonder. After an initial flurry of reporting, the ABA report has slipped below the radar, into the turgid backwash of mainstream media chatter. The President of the United States is knowingly, repeatedly and frequently usurping executive authority from other branches of government, tipping the delicate balance of powers that has served the republic well since it's inception. By any reasonable assessment the President has violated his central, primary responsibility to uphold the constitution. If we sit idly by knowing all this, you have to wonder, who's the bag of assholes here; the ABA, the Bush administration, or the American people? (And please, don't say Arlen Spector's on top of it!)

A Slippery, Slimy Slope

The Bush administration has been an absolute disaster for science policy and funding in the US. From climate change to biomedical research, from evolution to sexual behavior, the Bush White House has repeatedly demonstrated it’s willingness to be guided by corporate interests, religious theology, and political calculation – anything and everything except actual science. Once the undisputed world leader in basic and applied research, and a beacon to the best minds on the planet, the nation’s scientific enterprise is rapidly losing ground to the EU, Japan, South Korea and many other countries we used to regard as competitive only on the soccer field.

(x-posted here and here)

The misguided, destructive agenda of the administration is perhaps most evident in the field of stem cell research. As a consequence of scientifically nonsensical and morally simplistic restrictions issued by executive fiat at the outset of the Bush presidency, we were already well behind the curve when the Senate’s collective testicles finally descended last week, resulting in a fully bipartisan resolution easing Bush’s restrictions, and calling for federal research support aimed at realizing the therapeutic promise of embryonic stem cells.

The response from the White House was a sickeningly cynical pageant that could have only been produced under the direction of the dark one, Karl Rove. Trotted on stage, gurgling cherubs born from “adopted” blastocysts surrounded Bush as he exercised the first veto of his presidency. The sincerity of the president’s beliefs aside, the raw political calculation is that this was a no-brainer for the administration, rallying the enthusiasm of his carnivorous base with minimal risk of pissing off anybody that isn’t already convinced the man is the Worst. President. Ever. The announcement of the veto was chocked full of inspirational platitudes, sentiments like, “boys and girls are not spare parts”, “effective medical science can be ethical”, and other completely irrelevant blather. Bush also gratefully acknowledged the support of Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, attending the ceremony as representatives of the powerful Neanderthal caucus of the Senate.

Underlying all this, beyond any heinous political calculus and Rovian maneuvering on behalf of the GOP, is the president’s seemingly genuine and astoundingly simple-minded notion that a frozen embryo is morally equivalent to any human life, only frozen. In some sort of suspended animation. And really, really tiny. With fewer cells than most people. It is the potential for life that Bush wants us to believe demands the full force of federal protection. It is the incipient life of these few cells that establishes the moral line Bush refuses to cross, no matter how many Democrats, staunchly conservative Republicans in congress, and those pesky science geeks and bioethicists feel otherwise. Ignore the reality that the majority of cells in question will be discarded. Ignore the potential treatment of disease and suffering that may ultimately result from rescuing these cells from the incinerator. It is the life potential that defines the critical moral decision and dictates how we must respond, as individuals, and as a nation. Thus spoke the president.

But here’s the thing: it turns out that without a few additional steps, all those little youngsters-in-waiting have zero life potential. The odds aren’t good for the frozen guys in the first place because (big surprise!) the blastocysts judged most viable are used for the intended purpose. Sadly, even the success rate for those isn’t great. The next step, of course, is to convince the individuals that contributed the required cells to allow someone else to “adopt” them. Big surprise again, some folks don’t want to do that, and even among the ones that do, there aren’t enough takers. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s say you have a willing donor and an enthusiastic recipient. Next you have to prepare the temporary living quarters, which as it turns out, isn’t a simple matter, requiring considerable nest-building in the form of hormonal treatment to cozy up the would-be, non-biological womb. The actual squirting of the little frozen cell sack into it's new digs isn’t terrifically challenging on technical grounds, even if its not nearly as much fun as the more traditional method of conceiving, and (once again, big surprise) the prospects of actually planting, sprouting, and delivering a healthy human being under these conditions aren’t terrific. When it happens, its amazing. But there’s a lot that can go wrong along the way, and it often does.

So when you think about it – actually think about it – the life potential of a blastocyst, bubbling away in a chilly bath of liquid nitrogen, slated for disposal, isn’t all that great. Close to zero, actually. And certainly far less than the billions of sperm cells unceremoniously dumped into wads of tissue, and every other imaginable material, by men around the world every day (or multiple times per day, in the case of teens). After all, under the right conditions, each one of those brave little swimmers has the potential to become the next president of the United States, the next Albert Einstein, or the next insurance claims adjuster hoping for a stroke before he has to spend another day in the office with that fucking asshole Drew. And don’t think women escape responsibility in the equation. If they would only make themselves more readily available between the ages of 12 and 50, not only would the incidence of men murdering billions of their own life seeds decline drastically, but the tragic loss of the much rarer ova would drop like a rock.

You see, it really is a slippery slope. Don’t say you weren’t warned if Rick Santorum introduces a constitutional amendment banning masturbation, or if Sam Brownback sponsors a bill of tax incentives for women who remain continuously pregnant throughout their reproductive years, with extra credit for delivering a baby with Down syndrome.

Don’t be an asshole: Vote Democrat 2006 and 2008. Enough already.