Signing statements: bad if done by bush, good if done by obama

[Yurt]

Obama issues signing statement on spending bill

WASHINGTON – Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Barack Obama issued such a directive himself

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_signing_statements

:rolleyes:

[glockmail]

You're not suggesting that there is hypocrisy among the media elites, are you? :eek:

[DannyR]

I believe every president in recent years has used this tool. The objection about Bush wasn't that he used it, but that he used so many.

As wiki tells it:
Mr. Bush ... broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio

A report done in 2007 uses a different metric, which while showing Bush had less signing statements, was much more likely to use them to object to the intention of the law.
President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

So by either measure, W's used more objection signing statements than anyone else.

[glockmail]

...
As wiki tells it.... Interesting, as Wiki tells it, that Bush 43 is always referred to as "Mister" while the other presidents are given proper title.

[Mugged Liberal]

Obama issues signing statement on spending bill

WASHINGTON – Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Barack Obama issued such a directive himself

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_signing_statements

:rolleyes:

I happen to object to signing statements on general principles whether done by Bush, Obama, or their predecessors. This in insidious, chipping away at the basic structure of our system of checks and balances.

At the same time, one signing statement does not make the Obama record comparable to that of Bush.

If after six months the number of such statements put out by the White House is roughly equal to the Bush folks, then you have a case.

Mugged Liberal

[Little-Acorn]

I don't pay any attention to signing statements, since they are a legal nullity.

A President can "object" to parts of a bill all he wants. But if he signs it, it's law; and if he doesn't but sends it back to Congress, it's not.

The only real "objection" from a President that matters, is if he vetoes the bill.

Signing statements are merely window dressing, and have no effect on the bill, its legality, or its enforcement. They take on a bizarre note if the President say in a signing statement, that he won't enforce some or all of the bill. Even saying that, is irrelevant, of course. If he actually doesn't enforce the bill, then he's violating his duty as President and his oath of office.

Once a bill is passed by Congress and signed by the Prez, its enforcement isn't optional. Writing something in a signing statement, doesn't change that.

Basically, things written in a signing statement, don't change anything at all.

[DannyR]

Interesting, as Wiki tells it, that Bush 43 is always referred to as "Mister" while the other presidents are given proper title.Thats wiki for you. ;-) Truthiness in action.

[Yurt]

I happen to object to signing statements on general principles whether done by Bush, Obama, or their predecessors. This in insidious, chipping away at the basic structure of our system of checks and balances.

At the same time, one signing statement does not make the Obama record comparable to that of Bush.

If after six months the number of such statements put out by the White House is roughly equal to the Bush folks, then you have a case.

Mugged Liberal

there is no case, fact is obama criticized bush and then continued to make signing statements. if all you care about is the number or quantity, then all you really care about is the letter at the end of the name....(d)

[DannyR]

I don't pay any attention to signing statements, since they are a legal nullity.

A President can "object" to parts of a bill all he wants. But if he signs it, it's law; and if he doesn't but sends it back to Congress, it's not.Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Executive branch is the one that pretty much enforces the laws of the land and writes the code that tells how the laws are used. Signing statements, if I understand the objection correctly, basically direct the government to interpret the law in the manner the president desires. A carefully written signing statement thus has the power to nullify the law as written by selective enforcement.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm


A third function, more controversial than either of the two considered above, is the use of signing statements to announce the President's view of the constitutionality of the legislation he is signing. This category embraces at least three species: statements that declare that the legislation (or relevant provisions) would be unconstitutional in certain applications; statements that purport to construe the legislation in a manner that would "save" it from unconstitutionality; and statements that state flatly that the legislation is unconstitutional on its face. Each of these species of statement may include a declaration as to how -- or whether -- the legislation will be enforced.

Thus, the President may use a signing statement to announce that, although the legislation is constitutional on its face, it would be unconstitutional in various applications, and that in such applications he will refuse to execute it. Such a Presidential statement could be analogized to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld legislation against a facial constitutional challenge, but warned at the same time that certain applications of the act would be unconstitutional. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-24 (1987) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Relatedly, a signing statement may put forward a "saving" construction of the bill, explaining that the President will construe it in a certain manner in order to avoid constitutional difficulties. See Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298 (D.C. Cir. 1993), at *11-*12 (Silberman, J., joined by Wald, J.) (citing two Presidential signing statements adopting "saving" construction of legislation limiting appointment power). This, too, is analogous to the Supreme Court's practice of construing statutes, if possible, to avoid holding them unconstitutional, or even to avoid deciding difficult constitutional questions.

More boldly still, the President may declare in a signing statement that a provision of the bill before him is flatly unconstitutional, and that he will refuse to enforce it. This species of statement merits separate discussion.

Congress could probably impeach a President for this if the breach was grievous enough.

[April15]

It had better be his last! Veto is the proper way to deal with objections.

[DannyR]

there is no case, fact is obama criticized bush and then continued to make signing statements. if all you care about is the number or quantity, then all you really care about is the letter at the end of the nameThere is more than one type of signing statement. The primary ones people critiqued Bush for were instructions he gave officials on how to intentionally get around the just passed law he objected to.

Was Obama's done in a similar way, or just a statement he disagreed with aspects of the law in question but didn't actually say he wouldn't enforce it? I'd like to see the text of the statement in question before passing judgement.

[glockmail]

...Congress could probably impeach a President for this if the breach was grievous enough. Good luck wit that. The refusal of Presidents to enforce certain Acts of Congress goes back to at least 1866, when Andrew Johnson(D) refused to enforce the first Civil Rights Act.