Signing Statements

[Wild Cobra]

Too early to tell, but President Obama has issued four signing statements by May 20th. President Bush only had one by this time on his first term. He didn't have four until July 30th.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

well they grilled bush for doing it so obama better watch it.

[Winehole23]

On what bills, and what do they say, WC?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the Bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.

[LnGrrrR]

on what bills, and what do they say, wc?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.

+1

[LnGrrrR]

Although, I would not be surprised in the least if Obama took up Bush's idea that the signing statement was something where he said how he would interpret the law, even meaning he might just not follow it if he deemed it necessary.

For all the differences between Obama and Bush, love of executive power and secrecy is CERTAINLY not one of them.

[Winehole23]

+1

[sam1617]

Is anyone surprised? Presidential powers have expanded repeatedly since the formation of our nation, most often at times of danger for our country (Lincoln, FDR, Bush to mention a few). Not often do our Presidents release the power that their predecessor got. I would expect this pattern to continue for all eternity until Congress and Supreme Court just don't matter at all.

[angrydude]

news flash: the President never had to use a line item veto or signing statement or whatever to get his point across.

He could just use his discretion to not fund/do whatever he wanted anyway.

[Winehole23]

news flash: the President never had to use a line item veto or signing statement or whatever to get his point across.

He could just use his discretion to not fund/do whatever he wanted anyway.

Not true.

[Blake]

Too early to tell, but President Obama has issued four signing statements by May 20th. President Bush only had one by this time on his first term. He didn't have four until July 30th.

how many do you think Gore would have had by this time had he been elected instead of W?

why is this an issue for you?

[FromWayDowntown]

Is anyone surprised? Presidential powers have expanded repeatedly since the formation of our nation, most often at times of danger for our country (Lincoln, FDR, Bush to mention a few). Not often do our Presidents release the power that their predecessor got. I would expect this pattern to continue for all eternity until Congress and Supreme Court just don't matter at all.

Throughout the Bush Administration, that was my point about some of the arguments made by pro-Bush posters who were unalarmed by the extraordinary scope of executive power wielded by that administration. It's all fine and dandy when it's someone you like, but it's a bit harder to stomach when it's someone you oppose.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

how many do you think Gore would have had by this time had he been elected instead of W?

why is this an issue for you?

i don't even want to think about if gore had been elected.

[sam1617]

Throughout the Bush Administration, that was my point about some of the arguments made by pro-Bush posters who were unalarmed by the extraordinary scope of executive power wielded by that administration. It's all fine and dandy when it's someone you like, but it's a bit harder to stomach when it's someone you oppose.

Yeah, to me, the biggest disappointment of the George W Bush era to me is not anything to do with foreign policy, economic policy or anything like that. Its that when the Republicans has a good chance to shrink the federal government's power, they didn't instead they expanded it. It is damn frustrating. Its also the reason I have a new political theory, as long as there is a Democratic president, Republicans need to heavily control Congress, and whenever a Republican is President the opposing party should control Congress. As long as no one can do anything, America (and the world) wins.

[boutons_deux]

dubya ended up signing 100s of them, most of which said he wouldn't enforce the legislation, rather than simple qualifications or other notations.

dubya is do ented as serial abuser of signing statements, basically in line with head's idea that the Exec is the primary power, not to be held in check by the legislature or the courts.

As Conny said a couple weeks ago, if dubya did it something, it was by definition a priori legal. L'etat, c'est moi, is how French kings expressed it.

[ElNono]

too early to tell

+1

[FaithInOne]

Throughout the Bush Administration, that was my point about some of the arguments made by pro-Bush posters who were unalarmed by the extraordinary scope of executive power wielded by that administration. It's all fine and dandy when it's someone you like, but it's a bit harder to stomach when it's someone you oppose.

Bingo.

That's why small government is the only answer.

Obama will not be King of Americant forever. The pendulum WILL swing back to neocons eventually.

[LnGrrrR]

Bingo.

That's why small government is the only answer.

Obama will not be King of Americant forever. The pendulum WILL swing back to neocons eventually.

Are you implying that neocons weren't in favor of Executive power?

Technically, the pendulum swinging back would imply there might be a Pres who actually REDUCES exec power someday.

[FromWayDowntown]

For whatever it's worth, what follows are the complete texts of each of President Obama's signing statements:

1. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (2/17/09)

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." The Act provides a direct fiscal boost to help lift our Nation from the greatest economic crisis in our lifetimes and lay the foundation for further growth. This recovery plan will help to save or create as many as three to four million jobs by the end of 2010, the vast majority of them in the private sector. It will make the most significant investment in America's roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system. It will make investments to foster reform in education, double renewable energy while fostering efficiency in the use of our energy, and improve quality while bringing down costs in healthcare. Middle-class families will get tax cuts and the most vulnerable will get the largest increase in assistance in decades.

The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that failure to act quickly would lead to the disappearance of millions of more jobs and national unemployment rates that could be in the double digits. I want to thank the Congress for coming together around this hard-fought compromise. No one policy or program will solve the challenges we face right now, nor will this crisis recede in a short period of time. However, with this Act we begin the process of restoring the economy and making America a stronger and more prosperous Nation.

My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures to help ensure that every dollar spent in this historic legislation is spent wisely and for its intended purpose. The Federal Government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability. The legislation includes no earmarks. An oversight board will be charged with monitoring our progress as part of an unprecedented effort to root out waste and inefficiency. This board will be advised by experts—not just Government experts, not just politicians, but also citizens with years of expertise in management, economics, and accounting.

So much depends on what we do at this moment. This is not about the future of my Administration. This effort is about the future of our families and communities, our economy and our country. We are going to move forward carefully and transparently and as effectively as possible because so much is on the line. That is what we have already begun to do—drafting this plan with a level of openness for which the American people have asked and that this situation demands.

2. OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2009 (3/11/09)

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1105, the "Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009." This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.

As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate cons utional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded cons utional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise cons utional concerns.

* Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in les I and IV of Division B, le IV of Division E, and le VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my cons utional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.

* United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises cons utional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my cons utional authority and responsibilities.

* Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.

* Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.

* Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of le 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 Cons ution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Cons ution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

3. OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2009 (3/30/09)

Today I have signed into law H.R. 146, the "Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009." This landmark bill will protect millions of acres of Federal land as wilderness, protect more than 1,000 miles of rivers through the National Wild and Scenic River System, and designate thousands of miles of trails for the National Trails System. It also will authorize the 26 million-acre National Landscape Conservation System within the Department of the Interior.

Among other provisions, H.R. 146 designates three new units in our National Park System, enlarges the boundaries of several existing parks, and designates a number of National Heritage Areas. It creates a new national monument -- the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument –- and four new national conservation areas, and establishes the Wyoming Range Withdrawal Area. It establishes a collaborative landscape-scale restoration program with a goal of reducing the risk of wildfire and authorizes programs to study and research the effects of climate change on natural resources and other research-related activities.

Treasured places from coast to coast will benefit from H.R. 146, including Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan; Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia; Oregon's Mount Hood; Idaho's Owyhee Canyons; the Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado; Zion National Park in Utah; remarkable landscapes in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California; and wilderness-quality National Forest lands in Virginia and public lands in New Mexico.

This bipartisan bill has been many years in the making, and is one of the most important pieces of natural resource legislation in decades. This legislation also makes progress for which millions of Americans have long waited on another front. The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis. It creates new coordinated research activities through the National Ins utes of Health that will connect the best minds and best practices from the best labs across the country, and focus their efforts through collaborative scientific research into a cure for paralysis, saving effort, money, and, most importantly, time. It will promote enhanced rehabilitation services for paralyzed Americans, helping develop better equipment and technology that allows them to live full and independent lives free from unnecessary barriers. This legislation will work to improve the quality of life for all those who live with paralysis, no matter the cause.

Section 8203 of the Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint certain members of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission "based on recommendations from each member of the House of Representatives, the district of which encompasses the Corridor." Because it would be an impermissible restriction on the appointment power to condition the Secretary's appointments on the recommendations of members of the House, I will construe these provisions to require the Secretary to consider such congressional recommendations, but not to be bound by them in making appointments to the Commission.

4. FRAUD ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2009 (5/20/09)

Today I have signed into law S. 386, the "Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009." This Act provides Federal investigators and prosecutors with significant new criminal and civil tools to assist in holding accountable those who have committed financial fraud. These legislative enhancements will help the Department of Justice to combat mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, and related offenses, and to protect taxpayer money that has been expended on recent economic stimulus and rescue packages. With the tools that the Act provides, the Department of Justice and others will be better equipped to address the challenges that face the Nation in difficult economic times and to do their part to help the Nation respond to this challenge.

Section 5(d) of the Act requires every department, agency, bureau, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the United States to furnish to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a legislative en y, any information related to any Commission inquiry. As my Administration communicated to the Congress during the legislative process, the executive branch will construe this subsection of the bill not to abrogate any cons utional privilege.

5. CREATION OF RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL COMMISSION (6/2/09)

Today I am pleased today to sign into law, H.R. 131, which will create a Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission with the responsibility to plan, develop, and carry out activities to honor Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth. It is fitting that the life of our 40th President be commemorated on this occasion. The bill provides that the Commission will be composed of the Secretary of the Interior, four individuals whom I will appoint after considering the recommendations of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Foundation, and six members of Congress appointed by the congressional leadership. I wholeheartedly welcome the participation of members of Congress in the activities of the Commission. In accord with President Reagan's Signing Statement made upon signing similar commemorative legislation in 1983, I understand, and my Administration has so advised the Congress, that the members of Congress "will be able to participate only in ceremonial or advisory functions of [such a] Commission, and not in matters involving the administration of the act" in light of the separation of powers and the Appointments and Ineligibility Clauses of the Cons ution (Public Papers of the President, Ronald Reagan, Vol. II, 1983, page 1390).

[clambake]

great read, fwd.

now, why are people ing?

[Yonivore]

On what bills, and what do they say, WC?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the Bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.

Saying you will carry out a law so far as it doesn't infringe on your Article II powers as President, which was the gist of most of Bush's signing statements, is not the equivalent of a line-item veto.

[Wild Cobra]

In the first one, he talks about transparancy that hasn't happened. No big deal, we all knew he lied.

In the second one, he effectively has five line item vetoes(by the lib use of the phrase):

Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in les I and IV of Division B, le IV of Division E, and le VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my cons utional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.

United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises cons utional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my cons utional authority and responsibilities.

Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.

Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of le 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 Cons ution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Cons ution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

I might go over the third and fourth later, but this is the same type of thing you dimwitcrats cried about President Bush doing.

Think about your hypocrisy.

[Wild Cobra]

dubya ended up signing 100s of them, most of which said he wouldn't enforce the legislation, rather than simple qualifications or other notations.

159 signing statements is hardly "100's." you must be thinking of president Clinton. He made 381 signing statements.

dubya is do ented as serial abuser of signing statements, basically in line with head's idea that the Exec is the primary power, not to be held in check by the legislature or the courts.

Does that apply to President Clinton as well then? Since when, is stating in writing, that a president will not yield his authority, an abuse?

What memo did I miss?

As Conny said a couple weeks ago, if dubya did it something, it was by definition a priori legal. L'etat, c'est moi, is how French kings expressed it.

Actually, the ones that challenged the law were the ones that congress was imposing upon the Executive branch, which they cannot do because of the separation of powers. They were in essence saying the executive branch cannot be told by congress what to do. In reality, that's all President Obama has done as well. I applaud him for not giving in to congress. I only wish you liberals could be as respectful to President Bush for doing the same thing. I must question the lack of intelligence the congress has in trying to impose on the executive... Calling it a "priori" is being nice, rather than calling congress incompetent.

President Bush's 159 signing statements

President Obama's 5 (and growing) signing statements

[Wild Cobra]

On what bills, and what do they say, WC?

There's nothing wrong with a signing statement per se. Using them as the equivalent of a line item veto was the Bush novelty that drew such lusty complaints.

Find your favorite news attack on his signing statement, then go to the link I just posted, and read the signing statement for the date indicated.

I'll bet is was nothing more than saying he would not give up the executive power because congress cannot override his powers.

[LnGrrrR]

Saying you will carry out a law so far as it doesn't infringe on your Article II powers as President, which was the gist of most of Bush's signing statements, is not the equivalent of a line-item veto.

If a law interferes with a President's Article II powers, he does not have the right to wholesale ignore it. He has to challenge it through court. That's why we have a judiciary branch!

[LnGrrrR]

Find your favorite news attack on his signing statement, then go to the link I just posted, and read the signing statement for the date indicated.

I'll bet is was nothing more than saying he would not give up the executive power because congress cannot override his powers.

Why is there this belief that Congress can not write laws that puts checks on a President?

The only precedent for this sort of thinking is Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln. At least Lincoln's was during a time of war.