Executive, Still Privileged

Matt Welch | August 10, 2009

The New York Times is reporting that President Barack Obama has "relaxed his criteria" for issuing presidential signing statements:

Mr. Obama has attached signing statements to 5 of the 42 bills he has signed, focusing on 19 specific provisions. He also challenged, without listing them, "numerous provisions" in a budget bill requiring officials to obtain permission from a Congressional committee before spending money. It contained dozens of such requirements.

Damon Root wrote about Obama's signing-statements policy when it was announced in March.

Comments

|8.10.09 @ 9:31AM|#

I've lost count. How many promises has he outright broken now?

stuartl|8.10.09 @ 9:32AM|#

I am a huge Who fan, but I wish that song would get out of my head.

hamilton|8.10.09 @ 9:42AM|#

Well there's a big-ass surprise.

Is someone going to dog these to check whether the administration actually follows Congress's directive or not? Will anyone ask at a press conference?

|8.10.09 @ 9:47AM|#

Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

*sigh*

Rich|8.10.09 @ 10:20AM|#

"The fact that a previous or subsequent president might refuse to comply with laws that are valid is not a reason for this president to decline to assert his authority with regard to laws that are invalid," Mr. Dellinger said.

Now *that* is "transparency".

Ben Kenobi|8.10.09 @ 10:21AM|#

I don't get signing statements. If Congress passes a law and the President signs it, then that's a law right? The President can't just make parts of it not applicable, right?

Warty|8.10.09 @ 10:32AM|#

He's not even pretending anymore. This is too funny.

T|8.10.09 @ 10:37AM|#

J sub, I think the relevant line in there has always been

"They decide and the shotgun sings the song."

It always comes back to that, doesn't it?

|8.10.09 @ 10:53AM|#

It's good to be the king.

hmm|8.10.09 @ 11:14AM|#

Obamameter

Most of the kept promises are shitty ones that involve appointments and spending money on his friends.

|8.10.09 @ 11:25AM|#

Just another dig at The Chosen One
Obama's EPA plans fewer toxic cleanups

For years, the Bush administration was criticized for not cleaning up enough of the nation's most contaminated waste sites. The Obama administration plans to do even less.
Advertisement

Environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers railed against President George W. Bush's cleanup record. But this time, they're shying away from speaking out against a popular president who's considered an ally in the fight to clean up the environment.

Hey, we've got universal health care to woory about!

Ya think the enviromental activists feel like patsies now?

|8.10.09 @ 11:26AM|#

I don't get the problem with signing statements. Whether there is a signing statement or not the President needs to interpret the legislation in order to execute it, and may choose a self-serving or dishonest interpretation of it. Thus it has been since the dawn of the republic. A signing statement at least puts that interpretation on the record, which could help in a court case.

The real problem here is the hypocrisy, in that Obama promised not to use signing statements ("...Obama will sign legislation in the light of day without attaching signing statements that undermine the legislative intent." - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/TakingBackOurGovernmentBackFinalFactSheet.pdf)

Flugger|8.10.09 @ 11:38AM|#

Well it is actually unconstitutional for the executive to be required to "consult" a Congressional committee. Congress is bound by the constitution to act as a whole (except for treaties, nominations and other enumerated situations). So Congress doesn't get to do squat unless they pass a bill.

So I don't see why there's a problem for Obama to call congress out on it.

|8.10.09 @ 11:40AM|#

I'm not done with detailing the activites of Obama, Environmental Terrorist.*

GM gets to dump its polluted sites

When General Motors Co. emerged from bankruptcy, it was freed of obligations for polluted properties at discarded plant sites that will require millions of dollars to clean up.
Advertisement

GM's unusual, government-engineered bankruptcy allowed the Detroit automaker to emerge as a new company - and to shed billions in liabilities, including claims that governments had against GM for polluting.

This rational environmentalist adds another item to the "I thought Obama would be better than this" list.

* Hey, both blue and red teams now use this kind of rhetoric, why can't I?

Kevin|8.10.09 @ 11:49AM|#

What has surprised me about Obama is his uncanny ability to offend just about everyone across the spectrum. Unfortunately those on the "left" who he's abandoned will continue to support him, just like so many Republicans continued to support Bush.

One of the biggest problems we have in this country is people no longer thinking: "I support x, y, and x, and so does the Democrat/Republic party, so I am a Democrat/Republican." Now, it's mostly" "I am a Democrat/Republican, so I support whatever the party supports." Another way to say it is, people are putting support for their party above support for their ideals.

|8.10.09 @ 11:54AM|#

Well it is actually unconstitutional for the executive to be required to "consult" a Congressional committee. Congress is bound by the constitution to act as a whole (except for treaties, nominations and other enumerated situations). So Congress doesn't get to do squat unless they pass a bill.

So I don't see why there's a problem for Obama to call congress out on it.

If a bill has unconstitutional provisions, then the President's Constitutional duty is to veto it, not pen an memo about it that is either (a) unenforceable and therefor pointless or (b) enforceable, and therefor unconstitutional.

|8.10.09 @ 11:59AM|#

Yes, for a president to issue a signing statement where he says all or part of a bill, say, governing campaign finance reform, is unconstitutional, seems to me to be an impeachable offense. Not only is the president in that case acting unconstitutionally, he's also publicly admitting that he's doing so.

|8.10.09 @ 12:35PM|#

Damn you, Episiarch. I'm missing joe right now. (sniff)

mark|8.10.09 @ 12:46PM|#

I have a problem with this signing statement:

'Cash for Clunkers' has been a proven success: the initial transactions are generating a more than 50% increase in fuel economy; they are generating $700 to $1000 in annual savings for consumers in reduced gas costs alone; and they are getting the oldest, dirtiest and most air polluting trucks and SUVs off the road for good. Businesses across the country - from small auto dealerships and suppliers to large auto manufacturers - are putting people back to work as a result of this program.

mark|8.10.09 @ 12:52PM|#

Also, I learned a new word, "precatory":

Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

|8.10.09 @ 1:02PM|#

I'd have no problem with Obama saying he would refuse to enforce a given section of a law passed by Congress, in a written statement that said the provision was unconstitutional -- in a veto notice

I'd be ecstatic, in fact, if any president actually did their job like that, thus challenging Congress to impeach him and remove him from office if they objected to it.

But not in a fucking statement attached to his signature making the bill law.

Obama must have been a shitty Con-law professor.

Political Ad Tag-Line|8.10.09 @ 1:08PM|#

I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this bald-face lie.

Political Ad Tag-Line|8.10.09 @ 1:09PM|#

"Obama must have been a shitty Con-law professor."

He wasn't a professor. He was a "Lecturer"

hmm|8.10.09 @ 1:47PM|#

Lecturer is a level of professor at U. Chicago. He taught a regular class load for professors. It is just a titling discrepancy, he was considered faculty.

|8.10.09 @ 1:48PM|#

The problem with signing statements is that they are not subject to any check or balance. Congress can't override a signing statement as they would a veto.

That's probably also why they're so popular with executives.

|8.10.09 @ 1:58PM|#

hmm,

Are you sure about that? My experience has been that a lecturer is not tenure-track and has a status just above an adjunct. Law schools seem to follow the usual assistant, associate, full professor model, unless I've been away from it too long to recall correctly.

|8.10.09 @ 2:32PM|#

'Cash for Clunkers' has been a proven success: the initial transactions are generating a more than 50% increase in fuel economy

[citation needed]

Businesses across the country - from small auto dealerships and suppliers to large auto manufacturers - are putting people back to work as a result of this program.

[citation needed]

President Obama|8.10.09 @ 2:35PM|#

I cite to authority!

President Obama|8.10.09 @ 2:36PM|#

My authority! Which you shall respect.

Steven|8.10.09 @ 5:07PM|#

Gee, I'm so glad that Reason & Co told me to vote for Obama over McCain!

It is kinda like that whole save-or-create jobs things... think how much worse McCain would have been.

|8.10.09 @ 5:21PM|#

"""I've lost count. How many promises has he outright broken now?"""

He's an elected official, I'm going with all of them.

"""Yes, for a president to issue a signing statement where he says all or part of a bill, say, governing campaign finance reform, is unconstitutional, seems to me to be an impeachable offense."""

I don't think the signing statment is impeachable, he didn't do anything wrong yet. But if he were to ignore law and attempt to use the signing statement as his reason, then the action to which he is trying to justify would be impeachable. It's just wishful thinking on his part.

Just becuase he uses one doesn't mean that it has any real weight in a court of law, nor in a Senate trial. I think the President would lose if he tried using the signing statment as a legal reason for an action. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the President to disobey the law.

The idea that there is a seperation of powers issue is bullshit. Congress is charged with the duty of creating law, the President is expected to obey the law like everyone else. If the President does not have to follow laws written by Congress, then the office of President is lawless. Also, the only body that can lawfully remove a sitting president is Congress. So the idea that the Congress can never tell the President what to do is bullshit.