I wonder if anyone presenting at St. Petersburg is doing a paper on 
the topic "unitary executive" and it's corollary, "signing 
statements."  In the N.Y. Review dated June 22, Elizabeth Drew (who 
shares my contempt for the W) relates that instead of taking "care 
that the laws be faithfully executed," the W "claims the power to 
execute the laws as he interprets them, ignoring congressional 
intent."  She quotes Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb):

		There's a very clear pattern of aggressively asserting executive 
power, and the Congress has essentially been complicit in letting
		him do it.  The key is that Bush has a Republican Congress; of 
course if it was a Clinton presidency we'd be holding hearings."

Bill Clinton also used signing statements.  The article implies that 
he did it far less frequently and that his objections were explicit 
in relating how the act infringed on presidential powers.  "Bush 
asserts broad powers without being specific in his objections or 
saying how he plans to implement the law."

		The power grab has received little attention because it has been 
carried out largely in obscurity.  The press took little notice until
		Bush, on January 5 of this year, after signing a bill containing 
the McCain amendment, which placed prohibitions on torture, quietly
		filed a separate pronouncement, a "signing statement," that he 
would interpret the bill as he wished.

If anyone is doing a paper on this, and if Elizabeth Drew's article 
is wrong and misleading, could we please communicate on the issue?

Thanks, Bill