Dobbs: Why is the president ignoring our laws?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/dobbs.july26/index.html
Bush, feds flout the Constitution by finding ways around laws
By Lou Dobbs
CNN


Wednesday, July 26, 2006; Posted: 6:58 p.m. EDT (22:58 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- With upraised right hand and left hand on the Bible,
each of our presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush, has
solemnly sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the
United States.

The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated that
oath by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected
provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.

A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is
not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more
than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements
to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more
than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued
only 600.

The ABA asserts that signing statements cannot be a substitute for a
presidential veto and that such an assertion of presidential power
amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court already has ruled
unconstitutional.

The matter will likely be resolved in court. But it stands as a metaphor
for a 21st century America that is no longer secure in the claim to be a
nation of laws.

The federal government is failing to enforce our laws on a wide range of
issues. Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade
Agreement, which is clearly a treaty, have not been approved by
two-thirds of the Senate as required by the Treaty Clause of the
Constitution.

That clause states the president "shall have Power, by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds
of the Senators present concur." And why has the Senate not been
required to approve these treaties? Because the last three presidents
have claimed these trade deals are executive agreements rather than
treaties.

But if these so-called free-trade agreements are not to be considered
treaties, then they are clearly within the power of Congress, not the
president. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the
power to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations." But Congress has
given up its exclusive constitutional authority to negotiate and
regulate trade agreements by ceding "fast-track authority" to the
executive branch.

The president's fast-track authority is set to expire next year, more
than 30 years after its passage. It is no coincidence that the United
States has now posted a trade deficit for 30 consecutive years.

The federal government is also undermining the rule of law in this
country when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws and
securing borders and ports.

The Bush administration in its first four years was responsible for 318
fines against employers who hired illegal workers, an average of fewer
than 80 each year. That's down from 5,587 fines against illegal
employers during the eight years of the Clinton administration,
according to the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, an average of
698 each year. And the problem is getting worse; in 2004 only three
employers received fines for illegal hiring.

Work site arrests have fallen even more drastically under this
president. From 1995 to 1998, there were between 10,000 and 18,000 work
site arrests of illegal aliens each year. But during the Bush
administration, work site arrests fell to just 159 in 2004.

Apprehensions along the border averaged 1.05 million from fiscal year
2001 to 2004, according to the independent, progressive group Third Way,
down from 1.52 million from 1996 to 2000. Border apprehensions have
plummeted more than 30 percent, despite a doubling in the number of
Border Patrol agents over the past decade and the rising number of
attempted crossings.

It is not only the federal government that had diminished our claim to
be a nation of laws. More than 70 U.S. cities, including New York, Los
Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois, have set up "sanctuary"
policies that offer safe haven from the law to illegal aliens and their
families.

"It most certainly is a blatant violation of the law," says Rep. Tom
Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado. "There is a provision of the 1996
Immigration Act that is very clear: It says states and localities can't
do this. The unfortunate thing is there are no teeth in it."

As Abraham Lincoln said, if bad laws exist they should "be repealed as
soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of
example they should be religiously observed." President Lincoln devoutly
believed that rule of law assured that ours would continue to be a
government of the people, by the people and for the people.

And that should be the first demand of every American today.