Bush Signing Statements BAD, Obama Signing Statements GOOD

[5711-Marine]

Are Hope and Change a secret code words for hypocrisy?

Two days after Obama said this "Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements."

He issued his own "Constitutional signing statement"

Obama issues signing statement on spending bill
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 11, 7:21 pm ET

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.

Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill that includes billions for items known as earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to projects in their districts. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to curb such spending.

He also issued a "signing statement" in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised "raise constitutional concerns." Among them are provisions that Obama said would "unduly interfere" with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.

Another provision, Obama said, would limit his discretion to choose who performs specific functions in military missions.

On Monday, Obama ordered a review of former President George W. Bush's guidelines for implementing bills passed by Congress — the signing statements.

Bush often issued statements when he signed bills, objecting to parts of the legislation. Critics said the statements often showed government officials how to get around a law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.

"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused," Obama wrote Monday in a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies. "Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements."

At the same time, however, Obama did not rule out issuing any signing statements, which have been used for centuries. Rather, he ordered his administration to work with Congress to inform lawmakers about concerns over legality before legislation ever reaches his desk. He also pledged to use caution and restraint when writing his own signing statements, and said he would rely on Justice Department guidance when doing so.

"With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," Obama pledged.

[Morel42]

Are Hope and Change a secret code words for hypocrisy?

Two days after Obama said this "Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements."

He issued his own "Constitutional signing statement"

The Full Memo :

For nearly two centuries, Presidents have issued statements
addressing constitutional or other legal questions upon signing
bills into law (signing statements). Particularly since omnibus
bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been
used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of
discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the
entire bill.

In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion
and criticism of the use of signing statements to raise
constitutional objections to statutory provisions. There is
no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be
abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to
suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements
on the basis of policy disagreements. At the same time, such
signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at
least when based on well-founded constitutional objections. In
appropriately limited circumstances, they represent an exercise
of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy
dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress.
With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the
Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address
constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as
a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In
issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following
principles:

1. The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps,
whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its
constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such
communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive
branch and the Congress to work together to address these
concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the
number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled
bill that may require a signing statement.

2. Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with
a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to
avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill
is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility
to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is
unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint,
based only on interpretations of the Constitution that
are well-founded.
more

3. To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure
that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns
about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to
make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional
objection.

4. I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a
statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional
problem only if that construction is a legitimate one.
To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are
followed only when consistent with these principles, executive
branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice
of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements
issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for
disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision
of a statute.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees,
or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

Just for a fuller picture.

I don't think the majority had a problem with signing statements in principle, it was the amount and scope of Bush's statements which (in some cases) Basically came right out and stated that Bush had absolutely no intention of following any a law passed by congress at ALL. The sheer number and sheer "F U" to congress was the major issue.

Now I don't think they're should be signing statements at all, but they need to remove omnibus bills with riders attached that have nothing to do with the original law at all.

Basically the entire system needs to be friggin overhauled since we now have patchwork solutions to resolve problems stemming from congress not doing their f'ing jobs, and writing bills more clearly and specifically.

[5711-Marine]

Please enlighten us as to how this is acceptable:

Obama Will Ignore Cuba Provision in Omnibus

March 10, 2009 3:30 PM

Wolf_2ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports:

Democrats were one vote short last Thursday when they postponed a vote in the Senate on the omnibus spending bill that will fund the government for the remainder of this year.

One reason is that at least two Democrats who might otherwise have supported the bill were extremely concerned about provisions in it that have to do with relaxing the embargo on Cuba.

Those Senators have been given some wiggle room in their votes by the Obama administration, which today distanced itself from the provisions in the bill that were inserted last year by other Democrats on Capitol Hill.

In doing so, Obama could open himself up to more criticism that he is selectively interpreting language passed by Congress. Obama was critical of President Bush for interpreting laws from Congress with so-called "signing statements" that the Bush administration would publish and has called for a full review of all Bush era signing statements. Obama said he would only rarely publish his own.

"It's like a presidential signing statement except it's not the president and it's not a signing statement," said Robert Gibbs, when asked about the letter from Tim Geithner by Jake Tapper. He argued that every law must be interpreted, and deferred questions about Tim Geitner's letter to the Treasury Department.

The Senators concerned with the Cuba provisions in the spending bill have been told in writing by Treasury Secretary Geithner to essentially ignore one of the Cuba provisions in the spending bill and not to worry about the Obama administration's interpretations of another one. Geithner, in a letter to Democratic Senators Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida, argues that Obama had nothing to do with the Cuba provisions and that the Treasury Department will ignore them, for the time being, after the bill is signed.

“As you know, the Obama administration had nothing to do with these or any other provisions of that bill,” said Geithner in his letter. The same bill received veto threat from President Bush, so Democrats passed a temporary spending plan last year and delayed funding the government for this year until the new president took office.

One provision would have lifted restrictions on financing imports of U.S. food and medicine into Cuba. Current rules put in place by the Bush administration allow the imports, but require they be paid for up front.

"Exporters will still be required to receive payment in advance of shipment and will not be permitted to export to Cuba other than through third-party banks,” Geithner wrote, arguing that the provision in the spending bill does not negate an earlier law requiring that food and medicine exported to Cuba be paid for in cash and up front.

The spending bill also includes a provision to ease some travel restrictions to Cuba. But Geithner told the lawmakers in his letter that the provision would be narrowly interpreted.

Nelson said on the Senate floor today he would support the easing of some Cuba policies that President Obama supported as a candidate -- allowing family members to visit the country every year instead of every three years and sending more money home to that family.

But Nelson said it will be the responsibility of the "current administration to lay it out, not from the tinkering of a few lawmakers in a must-pass piece of legislation without any debate."

Both Nelson and Menendez said they would support the omnibus with Geithner's assurances.

A number of Republicans are expected to vote to cut off debate on the measure. At least two Democrats have said they will oppose the bill because of earmarks. Reid said last week that he will need Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is ailing from brain cancer, to vote to reach the magic number.

-- Z. Byron Wolf

[Morel42]

I'm going to have to read that when I get some sleep. Because I read that 4 times.. And I honestly have no idea what the overall meaning of that is..

Bill passed with provisions about Cuba
Treasury Decides how to interpret the law?

Or is it just poorly written?

[bloomautomatic]

Bush Signing Statements BAD, Obama Signing Statements GOOD

lemme shorten that headline to make it suitable for most media stories. "Bush BAD, Obama GOOD."

Vince

[Brick]

It ALL sounds like bullshit to me. If a provision of a law is unconsitutional, the entire law, should be vetoed. That removes all doubt about the President's concerns and whether the executive branch (as a whole) will enforce a law.

[eXceLon]

Signing statements didn't begin with the Bush administration. The problem was that the Bush administration used signing statements to essentially declare that he was going to act however he saw fit, without regard for what congress said.

The signing statement from Obama reads more like a list of concerns. I don't see anything in there that says he is going to disregard the law in favor of his own interpretation. So I'm not really seeing any hypocrisy here.

[5711-Marine]

I'm going to have to read that when I get some sleep. Because I read that 4 times.. And I honestly have no idea what the overall meaning of that is..

Bill passed with provisions about Cuba
Treasury Decides how to interpret the law?

Or is it just poorly written?

Nope you got it...

I take it as this is the "smarter way" Obama mentioned...

[5711-Marine]

And the legal scholars are weighing in on this

[Eric Posner, March 12, 2009 at 6:38pm] Trackbacks
President Obama’s first signing statement.

Here. A few days ago, President Obama explained that he would issue such statements more responsibly and sparingly than Bush did. Bush used the same constitutional theories that Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan did; what was distinctive about President Bush’s practice was that he would frequently spew forth grapeshot claims that knocked out unidentified provisions of a bill (“everything that is inconsistent with my commander in chief power”), whereas Clinton tended to issue more targeted statements that identified a particular provision of concern, although he fired grapeshot as well. We see the same old Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush theories in Obama’s first statement (including our old pal, the commander in chief power), and we even see the grapeshot approach in the first (“Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H,”), fourth (“Numerous provisions of the legislation”), and fifth bullet points. Bush challenged many more statutory provisions than Clinton did (but both of them challenged an infinitesimal fraction of the entire legislative output of Congress during their administrations), but because he cited the same clauses of the Constitution, it was hard to tell whether the difference between the two was that Bush had a more aggressive theory of presidential power or that he merely applied existing theories more consistently.

The signing statement controversy was phony. People had legitimate complaints about the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power, but the media couldn’t understand the issues, and so preferred to talk about how many signing statements each president issued. I discus all this here.

Back in 2006 an ABA task force issued a report that “opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.” Will it mount the ramparts yet again? Or are its members too busy trying to find jobs in the Obama administration?

Related Posts (on one page):

1. More on Obama’s signing statement.
2. President Obama’s first signing statement.