Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

(George Bush, at the White House, January 28, 2008)

Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, writes frequently on civil liberties, human rights, and international law. She gives us this explanation of George Bush's behavior:

All these declarations echo the refrain Bush has been asserting from the outset of his presidency. That refrain is simple: Presidential power must be unilateral, and unchecked.

But the most recent and blatant presidential intrusions on the law and Constitution supply the verse to that refrain. They not only claim unilateral executive power, but also supply the train of the President's thinking, the texture of his motivations, and the root of his intentions.

They make clear, for instance, that the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority....

Bush has used presidential "signing statements" - statements issued by the President upon signing a bill into law -- to expand his power. Each of his signing statements says that he will interpret the law in question "in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

Presidential signing statements have gotten very little media attention. They are, however, highly important documents that define how the President interprets the laws he signs. Presidents use such statements to protects the prerogative of their office and ensure control over the executive branch functions.

As Findlaw columnist Edward Lazarus explains, the president does not have unlimited executive authority, not even as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Our government was purposely created with power split between three branches, not concentrated in one:

We do know, though, that the President's basic strategy on this issue is to make a blanket pronouncement that he has the constitutional authority as "commander in chief" to exercise such power.

Democratic senator Jon Tester, a long-time advocate of the commission, blasted Bush for trying to circumvent a law that was drafted to save taxpayers money.

"There's no gray area here," Tester said. "The idea that the president would stand in the way of a non-partisan, independent committee to look into waste and fraud by companies like Blackwater and Halliburton in Iraq is inexcusable and it's irresponsible, and it ought to ruffle a lot of feathers across the country."

Bush signing statements prompted widespread controversy when his record came to light in 2006. After Democrats took over Congress in 2007, Bush initially issued fewer and less aggressive signing statements. But his new statement returned to the previous approach, observers said.

The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts. The new law expands employees' ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.

In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion" requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days. If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.

Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan" to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors.

The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel "expeditiously" upon its request.

The signing statement did not make clear whether Bush is objecting to the creation of the commission because some of its members will be appointed by Congress or whether he is reserving the right to turn down its requests for information - or both. (Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act, Boston.com)

"Bush has threatened to veto or promised not to obey every whistleblower rights law that has been proposed or adopted during his administration," Tom Devine, legal director at the non-profit Government Accountability Project, said.

"The president doesn't have the authority to cancel these rights," Devine added, "unless he sends in troops to stop a jury from hearing whistleblower cases".

"President Bush seems to forget that Congress is a co-equal branch of government, not a body whose decisions he can simply dismiss out of hand when he finds them inconvenient," Democratic congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who has led the push to prevent lasting bases in Iraq, said through a spokesman.

"With this most recent signing [statement] the president is also sending a dangerous signal to the people of Iraq that the US has a long-term interest in occupying their country, a move that will only enflame the insurgency," Woolsey added.

"I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that."

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a joint letter in November. On the surface, the "Declaration of Principles" appears as a mutual "expression of friendship," as it has been characterized by administration officials. But a closer look reveals a blueprint for how the two administrations plan to set the foundation for the future of America's involvement in Iraq. When administration officials describe that vision, the language they use is vague. The president recently spoke of an "enduring relationship."

The fourth and last provision of the law that Bush sought to ignore was a requirement of the administration to turn over "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion" requested by the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees within 45 days. The New York Times tells us why this last provision of the law is one that Bush never intended to comply with:

Just before Monday night’s State of the Union speech, in which Mr. Bush extolled bipartisanship, railed against government excesses and promised to bring the troops home as soon as it’s safe to withdraw, the White House undermined all of those sentiments with the latest of the president’s infamous signing statements...

Over the last seven years, Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of these insidious documents declaring that he had no intention of obeying a law that he had just signed. This is not just constitutional theory. Remember the detainee treatment act, which Mr. Bush signed and then proceeded to ignore, as he told C.I.A. interrogators that they could go on mistreating detainees?

This week’s statement was attached to the military budget bill, which covers everything except the direct cost of the war. The bill included four important provisions that Mr. Bush decided he will enforce only if he wants to...

Clearly, this violates the power that Mr. Bush has given himself to cover up an array of illegal and improper actions, like his decisions to spy on Americans without a warrant, to torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions and to fire United States attorneys apparently for political reasons.

It’s glaringly obvious why Mr. Bush rejected the fourth provision, which states that none of the money authorized for military purposes may be used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

It is more evidence, as if any were needed, that Mr. Bush never intended to end this war, and that he still views it as the prelude to an unceasing American military presence in Iraq. (The Fine Print, New York Times)

And, we, the Americans no longer protected by the U.S. constitution are left with a president that holds himself above the rule of law. We are living in perilous times that could, in effect, change our rights and representation forever.

Now, back to my original questions: Is this dangerous to our democracy? Why do we put up with it? Can we stop it?

The answer is yes. We stop it by listening carefully to the role that our presidential candidates wish to take on. Listen to their words and you will understand how they see the job of president.

As we head into the elections, we need to ask ourselves, who among the candidates expresses the most value and respect for Congress and understands that Congress is our voice in government?

Which presidential candidate will refuse to define himself as ruler and instead will define herself as leader servant?

We must put an end to electing rulers and once again regain our representative governmental power in Congress.

If you hear a candidate say that he wants to rule the free world or be the ruler of the free world, please do not elect him. Tell him that we are not looking for a ruler. Tell him (by not voting for him) that we instead wish to have a representative government and that we want equal powers to reside in the people's house - in the halls of the Senate and Congress.

Tell your candidate that in a democracy that we will not be ruled and that no president is above the law.