Caution! Constitution-Shredding in Progress!

It's either ironic or simply hypocritical that President Bush continues to employ signing statements to trump Congressional statutes even as he rhetorically argues on behalf of the original intention of the Constitution's authors.
In his State of the Union speech on Monday, Bush said "on matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel."
Yet on the same day he uttered those words, he continued, as the Guardian put it, "his practice of disregarding portions of new laws, quietly reserving the right to build permanent military bases in Iraq, keep Congress in the dark on spying activity and block two accountability measures aimed at private security firms accused of wartime abuses."
In a Harvard Law Review article, David Barron and Martin Lederman argue that the Bush Administration's position is predicated on the argument that "the Commander in Chief Clause prevents Congress from interfering with the President’s operational discretion in wartime by 'direct[ing] the conduct of campaigns.' Or, as it is sometimes more broadly put, the idea is that Congress may not regulate the President’s judgments about how best to defeat the enemy — that the Commander in Chief’s discretion on such matters is not only constitutionally prescribed but is preclusive of the exercise of Congress’s Article I powers." (citations omitted)
Preclusive in that it precedes and therefore trumps Congress's Article I powers to enact legislative statutes that seek to exert Congressional authority, thereby explicitly reigning in an overreach of Presidential authority. Or, as it's described in a "Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legal Counsel, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President (Aug. 1, 2002)," Congress isn't permitted to "dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield."
**
The most recent Bush signing statement followed his signature on H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. As the official White House statement puts it, "provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President," or, simply ignore "such provisions."
The bill's sections involve "Commission on Wartime Contracting" (sec. 841); "Protection For Contractor Employees From Reprisal For Disclosure Of Certain Information" (sec. 846); "Communications With The Committees On Armed Services Of The Senate And The House Of Representatives" (sec. 1079); and "Limitation On Availability Of Funds For Certain Purposes Relating To Iraq" (sec. 1222)
**
Section 841 relate to Congress's duty to assess, among other things, "the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse under such contracts; the extent to which those responsible for such waste, fraud, and abuse have been held financially or legally accountable; [and] the extent to which contractors under such contracts have engaged in the misuse of force or have used force in a manner inconsistent with the objectives of the operational field commander; and the extent of potential violations of the laws of war, Federal law, or other applicable legal standards by contractors under such."
It's pretty clear why this merited a signing statement, given the behavior of Blackwater in Iraq and the several no-bid contracts that have been awarded to various companies.
Section 846 involves whistleblower protection ("increased protection from reprisal") for contractor employees. Again, given the objection to the previous section, the last thing the Administration wants is legal protection for those willing to testify to wrongdoing.
Section 1079 addresses the authority of Congress to receive testimony from intelligence officials: "The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of a national intelligence center, or the head of any element of the intelligence community shall, not later than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives for any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion relating to matters within the jurisdiction of such Committee, make available to such committee such assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion, as the case may be."
This section even includes the provision "unless the President determines that such document or information shall not be provided because the President is asserting a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States."
But, recalling the Administration's assertion of preclusion, Congress lacks the authority to require this testimony at all. Apparently, a presidential assertion of privilege is beside the point.
Section 1222 is the kicker, since it relates to the prohibition of using appropriated funds for building permanent bases in Iraq:
"No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The permanent base issue is particularly contentious (actually, they all are) since Defense Secretary Robert Gates said as recently as last week that "we have no interest in permanent bases."
Yet as Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) said in the Senate yesterday, "every time a senior Administration official is asked about permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities. Yet this signing statement issued by the President yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the Administration wants to hold this option in reserve. Mr. President, that is exactly the wrong signal to send, both to the Iraqi government and its neighbors in the region."
Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at the University of Indiana (and a former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration) said, "Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq."
American Bar Association President Karen Mathis told members of the House Judiciary Committee today that "the potential for misuse in the issuance of presidential signing statements has reached the point where it poses a real threat to our system of checks and balances and the rule of law."

But absent the critical involvement of the Judiciary branch, George Bush will continue to ignore legislation he doesn't like even as he heaps contempt on the other two branches of government. If that doesn't define a Constitutional crisis, what does?