ndmckinney|net

Senator McCain gives a speech calling for emmissions caps. I’m not sure how this will fly with the “Jesus says you have to drive a Ford Leviathan” vote.

After a heated four-way campaign for the French presidency that was on its way to up-ending the political landscape, the French seem to have gone back to what they know - the socialists and the UMP.

This is certainly a shift in the stance the election was tending towards. For the first time, the French looked to putting a centrist candidate, Bayrou, on the ballot. The xenophobic canidade, Le Pen, has never really been a contender (the previous election, where he made the second round, aside). But whatever happens now, the French will have to choose between the status-quo (Sarkozy) and the perpetual alternative to the status quo (Royal).

C’est la vie.

As you may remember, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued a report last week condemning President Bush’s use of signing statements to effectively ignore the law. The ABA report states that President Bush has used signing statements to ignore or “disobey” more than 750 laws since coming into office, and that the use of such signing statements exceeds the president’s constitutional authority and presents a crisis, since the Congress effectively would have no power if the president could simply ignore any legislation.

Also last week, largely in response to the ABA report, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced S. 3731, titled “The Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006″, would give the Congress the power to challenge such statements in federal court [Sec. 5]. The bill also would not allow the courts to use the signing statements when interpreting the statute [Sec. 4]. As I read the bill, it is not as much an attack on the courts, stating that the use of signing statements as authority is “inappropriate, because it in effect gives these statements the force of law.” [Sec. 2, Paragraph 5].

The irony, of course, is that the president will most likely try and ignore this law just as he has ignored the other 750 laws to date. I’m not sure that this bill is even necessary, assuming that it even passes. If the Congress delegates authority to the president, or if the executive branch has the constitutional power to act, it can simply avoid the issue by not enforcing the law. I do not see how the Congress can force the executive to act.

I do not like using the phrase “Constitutional crisis”; the phrase is overused and only confuses the issue. I do think, however, that this may be an instance where there is a gap in the constitution. Remember, the Congress is asking the courts to intervene. Even if there is a statute in place, I do not think the courts will have the power to act. Most telling is a line from the ABA report’s recommendations: “It is to be hoped that the President would obey any constitutional declaration of the Supreme Court.” [Report, p. 25]