The contribution is an opinion piece, and opinion pieces often selectively pick the evidence in order to bolster the argument. But good opinion pieces don't deliberately make up things in order to win. That tactic is left to the likes of Bill O'Reilly and other howlers on the Right (and yes, I have just selectively picked my evidence).
Collins begins by referring to a "New York Times" editorial that claimed the signing statement is used by President Bush to declare "his intention not to enforce anything he dislikes."
As I have argued before, even this president grounds his challenges within the parameters of the Constitution. Never has this president or any other made a claim: I challenge the First Amendment, therefore the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment no longer apply. Or "Section 202 of this bill provides funding to clean up Lake Erie. I don't like clean lakes, therefore tough luck Cleveland." You may say that my examples are distorting and extreme, but if so, then how do you justify "the signing statement is used by President Bush (or any president) to refuse enforcement of anything he dislikes"?
If you read Bush's signing statement (or any president's signing statement), when he challenges a provision of law, he does so by asserting some constitutional obligation to refuse enforcement or defense. Now you may disagree with the way in which he is interpreting the Constitution, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. Even the Congress, which is clearly the body that should be challenging the signing statement, refuses to go toe to toe with the president's understanding of the Constitution, instead wagging its collective finger at the courts and telling them: "You are not to use the president's signing statement as guidance to interpretation." Why aren't there OpEd pieces about this?
Other problems with Collins's article:
- Like a great many other people, he declares the signing statement illegitimate because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Come on, are we all that simple? The Constitution doesn't say anything about funding a space program, but that doesn't stop the Congress from doing so. The Constitution does not say anything about judicial review, but do we deny that it exists? This represents the worst form of argument.
- Collins also claims that the power to resist items deemed unconstitutional is a power "not granted to the president." He doesn't say who it is granted to, but my guess would be that he thinks this is a power given only to the courts. But if we believe only the courts have final say, then we will have thrown out checks and balances and placed primus inter pares, the court's place as first among equals. Instead, the Constitution places within each institution the power and obligation to interpret the meaning of the Constitution for itself--a theory known either as Departmentalism or Coordinate Construction. And if you do not believe the Founders meant for this, then why not read them yourself.
