Bush's hedge on bill renews debate over 'signing statements'

"We don't quite know what the administration intends with this sort of language," said Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who sponsored the provision on the contracting commission. "But I want all my colleagues to be aware of it and to be aware that it potentially is an impingement on the rights of this legislative body -- in effect saying that the president has the authority to ignore a law that is now passed, a law that he has now signed."

Perino said that the administration has no intention of building permanent bases in Iraq or seizing control of the country's oil resources but that Bush was upholding a constitutional principle. "The signing statement . . . merely protects the constitutional prerogatives of the president and preserves commander-in-chief authorities -- for this president and future presidents," she said.

Legal scholars generally credit -- or blame, depending on their viewpoint -- the office of Vice President Dick Cheney for seeking to expand the constitutional powers of the president during Bush's two terms in office. In interviews, Cheney has said that he was alarmed by the erosion of presidential authority he witnessed while serving as chief of staff for former President Ford after the Watergate scandal.

Law professor Lederman said he had thought that Cheney's interest in expanding the powers of the president had been reined in by the White House's new legal staff.

Bush's action Monday suggests otherwise, he said: "This assertion of commander-in-chief authority to disregard statutes is the most important and increasingly prominent separation-of-powers issue in our nation -- and will continue to be for the foreseeable future."

--

maura.reynolds@latimes.com