Protecting our Constitution

As an American citizen and public servant, I take my oath to protect and defend the Constitution very seriously. I understand that the balance between security and civil liberties is delicate. Fail to provide law enforcement the tools they need to protect our country and we could open ourselves up to another terrorist attack. Fail to adequately protect our civil liberties, and we could end up with a country that no longer resembles the one we know and love today. I believe we can best protect our country by remembering what Benjamin Franklin said many years ago, namely, "that a country willing to sacrifice its freedom for security, will get neither."

That is why I voted against the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001, and why I have supported reforms in the way the executive branch (the presidency and federal Justice Department) gathers necessary intelligence in the United States. We can have a robust and effective strategy that foils terrorist plots and protects the homeland without eroding the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. But doing so requires that Congress not simply give President Bush (or any president) unfettered authority to do as he sees fit. If there is one thing our Constitutional founders warned against it was that government power needs to be limited -- particularly in times of crisis and fear.
We also must respect the checks and balances our constitution envisions for the proper functioning of the three branches of government: the executive, legislative and judicial.

In this regard, I have been particularly concerned about President Bush's use of so-called "signing statements" to change the meaning of laws passed by Congress. Signing statements have been used by Presidents from both parties to interpret the laws passed by Congress. However, the Bush Administration's use of signing statements is unprecedented-both in quantity and in scope. Many of the statements interpret the laws passed by Congress to mean the opposite of that which Congress intended. The use of the statements to rewrite the laws passed by Congress exceeds executive authority, and the signing statements should not have the effect of law.

To reign in the President's abuse of executive authority, I have co-sponsored Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 (H.R. 3045). The bill would ensure that Congress maintains its constitutional authority to legislate by barring a state or federal court from relying on or deferring to a signing statement as a source of authority when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress. The bill would also require any federal or state court to permit the House and/or Senate to file an amicus brief and present oral argument in any case about construction or constitutionality of a bill on which there was a signing statement or authorize a concurrent resolution to clarify Congressional intent, and require a court to put it into the case record.