President Bush is nibbling at the edges of a major constitutional confrontation with Congress, and so far Democratic leaders are not calling his hand on it.
In a calculated act of civil disobedience, Bush has told Congress he won't carry out certain provisions of certain laws because he believes them to be an infringement on his constitutional powers.It's a new twist on the old argument over line-item veto powers - long sought unsuccessfully by Republican presidents from Democratic Congresses.
Bush's first act of defiance came, little noticed, in November on a bill providing money for two federal agencies. He did it again Friday on a $9.8 billion State Department measure.
So far, the president's actions have generated little heat in Congress - largely because he hasn't done much to publicize them and, consequently, members generally seem unaware of what he's been up to.
"We're going to put someone on this right away," said Rep. Don Edwards, D-Calif., chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights.
Edwards, who usually keeps track of such things, said he had not been aware of Bush's assertions. "It's totally unacceptable to have a president who doesn't comply with the law," he said.
In November, Bush signed a bill providing funds for the Treasury Department and the Postal Service but said he would refuse to obey one section.
The section would have prevented him from requiring government employees to sign statements promising not to disclose classified information. Bush said the provision interfered with his "constitutional duty to protect such information" and that he wasn't going to obey it.
On Friday, Bush signed a bill authorizing $9.8 billion for the State Department for the next two years but said he would not go along with several key sections.
Bush said he would refuse to obey a requirement that the administration report to Congress future sensitive diplomatic missions like national security adviser Brent Scowcroft's clandestine trip last June to Beijing.
Furthermore, he said he would disobey requirements that he disclose any U.S. contacts with Palestine Liberation Organization members who might be terrorists; and that he include members of Congress in the U.S. delegation negotiating arms reductions in Europe.
In each instance, Bush cited interference with what he asserted was his constitutional right to conduct foreign policy.
Bush's initiatives were applauded by Mitch Daniels, who was White House political director for former President Reagan and who now is director of the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Indianapolis.
"I think it's an important step by Bush to reclaim the rightful presidential prerogative. This has really gotten to the ridiculous stage, where massive authorization bills not only attempt to hogtie the administration, but sometimes even with language that no one really voted for," Daniels said.
"I like the style, he's done it quietly," he said.
Since the Supreme Court, and not the executive branch, has the final say on what's constitutional, Bush's strategy seems destined to end up in a court challenge.
Still, Bush "has long been concerned" over what he views as the erosion of the executive's constitutional powers by Congress and "he feels as president he has the constitutional duty" to refuse to obey laws that he thinks jeopardize his constitutional powers, said deputy White House spokesman Alixe Glen.
Bush's actions do not constitute a line-item veto as such, but have some of the same impact. A line-item veto is the ability to veto specific lines or sections of a spending bill while leaving the rest standing, a power enjoyed by 43 governors but not by the president.
Most legal scholars - although, significantly, not White House lawyers - claim line-item veto powers require an amendment to the Constitution.
White House counsel C. Boyden Gray is searching for a test case on which to try to exercise line-item veto powers, aides said.