An Impeachable Offense?

We've long known about President Bush's signing statements, in which he claims to reserve the right to disregard the very bills he's signing into law. Now an investigation by the Government Accountability Office has revealed that Bush is indeed putting this highly questionable "right" into practice.

President Bush is notorious for issuing statements taking exception to hundreds of bills as he signs them. This week, we learned that in a shocking number of cases, the Bush administration has refused to enact those laws. Congress should use its powers to insist that its laws are obeyed.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, investigated 19 provisions to which Mr. Bush objected. It found that six of them, or nearly a third, have not been implemented as the law requires. The G.A.O. did not investigate some of the most infamous signing statements, like the challenge to a ban on torture. But the ones it looked into are disturbing enough.

But never mind the specifics of the laws the Bush is refusing to enforce. Instead, let's look at the bigger picture, and see what the United States Constitution has to say about a President's powers and, more importantly, responsibilities. Here's Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Pretty straightforward, right? Among other duties, the President is required to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Congress passes bills, in accordance with the Constitution, and the President signs those bills into law and then has the responsibility of executing, or enforcing, those laws. But Bush isn't doing so, instead claiming an executive prerogative, one which the Constitution doesn't allow and which the Founding Fathers, in deep distrust of the absolute power of monarchy, surely never intended any President to have.

In short, Bush isn't doing his job, in direct violation of the Constitution which is the legal foundation for all of American society. Directly and willfully violating the Constitution... doesn't that sound like it would be considered, at the very least, a misdemeanor, and probably a crime? Again from the Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Enough said.