’Tis a advice and consultation devoutly to be wished. The Glob:

Senate Democrats began building a case yesterday against the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. centering on his deference to executive power, setting the stage for next week’s confirmation hearings to become a battle over President Bush’s contentions that he can bypass torture and surveillance laws.

Remember reading about “signing statements” in civics class? No? I didn’t think so. Read on:

And this week, after Bush contended that he could waive the torture ban to protect national security, the three GOP senators who sponsored the law including Judiciary Committee member Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina condemned the president’s view of his powers.

Bush asserted that he could waive the torture restrictions in a “signing statement,” an official document recording a president’s legal interpretation of a new law. Bush had resisted the torture restrictions, but Congress approved them by such a large majority that he could not veto the bill.

So, if Bush signs a law with his fingers crossed behind his back, then the law is not a law? WTF?

The idea that the Executive should interpret the law via “signing statements” pins the wankometer. Under the seperation of powers, it’s up to the judiciary to interpret the law, not the executive! So, what Bush is proposing is—surprise—precisely tyranny, the definition of tyranny as the Founders understood it. Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

And who invented this noxious doctrine, this recipe to destroy our Constitution and replace it with despotic, arbitrary power? Ecce homo:

In the past, presidents rarely issued such legal statements when signing bills. But in 1986, when Alito was working for former attorney general Edwin Meese III, the future nominee proposed that President Reagan issue signing statements more frequently.

Alito contended that courts sometimes research congressional statements and reports when trying to interpret the intent of an ambiguous law. Alito proposed that the more frequent issuing of signing statements by presidents would “increase the power of the executive to shape the law” by leaving a record of the president’s view. “Since the president’s approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate [not under the Constitution!], it seems to follow that the president’s understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress,” wrote Alito.

Leahy said yesterday that he plans to connect Alito’s 1986 memo to Bush’s use of a signing statement last week to assert an interpretation of the torture law that clashed with the intent of Congress. “It is disturbing that President Bush seeks authority to dictate [exactly] the interpretation of laws written and passed by Congress,” Leahy said. “Tellingly, this president’s current choice for the Supreme Court was instrumental in developing this strategy 20 years ago while serving in the Meese Justice Department. I will be interested to hear Judge Alito’s current thoughts on presidential signing statements as a device to expand presidential power and to minimize congressional intent.”

Why would his current thoughts be any diffent from his past thoughts? Scalito got promoted for recommending tyranny, and now he’s serving under a tyrant. What more do we need to know?