Expressing concerns about the actions of the current U.S. administration, CPJ members Jean Haynes, Joe Jarvis, Marty Sanden, and Jonathan Woolson produced the following statement that was published in the October 3 issue of the Dunkirk Observer and the October 5 issue of the Buffalo News.
The Dunkirk-Fredonia Center for Peace and Justice raises concerns about the recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of our U.S. Government:
The Executive Branch has claimed the right to prosecute any member of the press who reveals any classified government information ("White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks", The Washington Post, 3-5-06).
Without adequate explanation, the Executive Branch chose to re-classify more than 55,000 government documents that were previously declassified and available to the public ("U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review", The New York Times, 2-21-06).
The U.S. press has both the First Amendment right and the democratic responsibility to provide the citizens of our country with information about the choices that our government makes in our name. When the American press cannot (or fears to) inform us, we lose our right to know what choices our leaders are making, endangering the foundation of our free and open society. Once our rights to government information are lost, will there ever be any incentive for our current (or future) government to restore those rights, weakening its own power?
Since 2001, President Bush has vetoed only one bill (federal funding for stem cell research, vetoed on July 20, 2006). Rather using his veto on other bills with which he does not agree, President Bush has attached more than 800 "signing statements" to bills passed by Congress, invalidating their intent. Recently, The Boston Globe reported "among the laws Bush has challenged are a torture ban, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, [...] whistleblower protections for executive branch employees, safeguards against
political interference in federally funded scientific research, and numerous other statutory restrictions or requirements on his powers." ("ABA urges halt to `signing statements'", The Boston Globe, 8-9-06).
A "signing statement" is a proclamation written by the President and attached to a new law explaining how the executive branch will interpret and enforce it. Under the U.S. Constitution's "checks and balances", the President may either veto or sign a bill into law. Our Constitution does not allow the President to reverse the intent of bills signed into law with the equivalent of a line-item veto. Presidential line-item vetoes were ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998 (Clinton v. City of New York).
On August 8, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued their report saying in part, "...the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress".
We ask our fellow citizens to consider whether or not actions taken by our federal government support the rule of law, protect fundamental principles of democracy, and uphold the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Jean Haynes, Brocton, NY
Joe Jarvis, Fredonia, NY
Marty Sanden, Dunkirk, NY
Jonathan Woolson, Fredonia, NY
for the Dunkirk-Fredonia Center for Peace and Justice
