# Bush still appending "signing statements" to new laws saying he won't obey them **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264 "2006-05-03T18:20:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/1 "2006-05-03T18:20:03Z")
In a thread in January, we discussed the Bush Admin’s use of “presidential signing statements” added when Bush signs new legislation, stating how the Admin interprets the law and what language it does or does not intend to respect: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667) He’s still doing it. In March, when Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT ACT, he “included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act’s expanded police powers.” [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush\_shuns\_patriot\_act\_requirement/](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/) (Registration required but free.) Bush has added such it-don’t-apply-to-me statements to 750 bills he has signed as president – an unprecedented 1 out of 10. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush\_challenges\_hundreds\_of\_laws/](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/) Three Senate Democrats – Kennedy, Reid and Leahy – have called him on it. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/02/3\_democrats\_slam\_president\_over\_defying/](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/02/3_democrats_slam_president_over_defying/) Nevertheless, except for the _Boston Globe,_ which broke the stories linked here, the mainstream media curiously have ignored this. [http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020011](http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020011) Does anyone care to defend what Bush is doing here, or argue he has the constitutional authority? ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/2 "2006-05-03T18:51:17Z")
I don’t know why this isn’t an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office. We have an entire branch of government to decide on the constitutionality of the laws – and it ain’t the executive branch. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/3 "2006-05-03T18:59:48Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I don’t know why this isn’t an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office. Because he’s only making a statement? It wouldn’t become an offense until he actually follows up on his stated intention to disobey/disregard something in the bill. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/4 "2006-05-03T19:27:07Z")
My impression is that he _has_ defied the law, in the instance that I’m recollecting by refusing to provide Congress with information, as provided for in the law. (I don’t have the cite handy, but will look for it later). Besides, I’m not sure what the point would be of issuing a signing statement and then going ahead and following the law anyway. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/5 "2006-05-03T19:31:19Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > Besides, I’m not sure what the point would be of issuing a signing statement and then going ahead and following the law anyway. Well, it’s conceivable that the clause to which the prez objects applies to a situation that never actually comes up during his term. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/6 "2006-05-03T19:47:24Z")
I don’t like it, but I pretty much said everything I wanted to say in the Pit Thread (especially before it disintegrated into a debate about gay marriage). ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/7 "2006-05-03T19:49:18Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I don’t know why this isn’t an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office. We have an entire branch of government to decide on the constitutionality of the laws – and it ain’t the executive branch. Actually, it kind of is. All three branches should be concerned about the constitutionality of laws. If the president believes part of a law is unconstitutional, then he should veto the law. The entire law. Another option would be to sign the law, but immediately send things to the court (I’m not sure how he’d do this without breaking the law first, but there could be a way, at the very least he could create a test case with a small, public, infraction). He has options availiable to him. What the president cannot do is simply refuse to obey a law. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/8 "2006-05-03T20:33:08Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > Another option would be to sign the law, but immediately send things to the court (I’m not sure how he’d do this without breaking the law first, but there could be a way, at the very least he could create a test case with a small, public, infraction). No cite, but I recall from a Con Law class that George Washington once sent a proposed treaty to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on its constitutionality. He was rebuffed – they told him, in effect, we don’t do that; as a court of law, we can only decide constitutional/legal questions when ruling on actual cases-in-controversy before the court. ---
**Author:** ![ASAKMOTSD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@ASAKMOTSD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASAKMOTSD)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/9 "2006-05-03T23:44:02Z")
I forget - regarding invasion of a foreign country based on false pretenses - is that a high crime or is that a misdemeanor? Is it worse if you make the call to do so with an intern under your desk - or does that matter? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/10 "2006-05-04T03:18:08Z")
> [@d1gger](#): > > I forget - regarding invasion of a foreign country based on false pretenses - is that a high crime or is that a misdemeanor? Is it worse if you make the call to do so with an intern under your desk - or does that matter? It’s acceptable only if you’re a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/11 "2006-05-04T03:20:29Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I don’t know why this isn’t an impeachable offense, and a violation of the oath of office. Like **rjung** says, it’s because he’s a Republican. A Democrat who acted like Bush would have been impeached long ago. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/12 "2006-05-04T12:54:33Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Like **rjung** says, it’s because he’s a Republican. A Democrat who acted like Bush would have been impeached long ago. Well, you’re both wrong, obviously, since Democrats have done the same thing and weren’t impeached for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/13 "2006-05-04T13:46:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, you’re both wrong, obviously, since Democrats have done the same thing and weren’t impeached for it. > > Regards, > Shodan Is that the same thing as in “Democratic presidents have issued signing statements - indicating questions or disagreement with some portion of legislation, (possibly in line with Supreme Court judgements)” or “Democratic presidents have issued signing statements broadly at odds with legislation, such as rejecting Congressional authority to issue laws explicitly denying the president permission to send troops into combat in specified countries with which we are not at war” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/14 "2006-05-04T14:14:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, you’re both wrong, obviously, since Democrats have done the same thing and weren’t impeached for it. True that Dem presidents have used “signing statements” – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing\_statement#Presidential\_usage:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Presidential_usage:) > [@](#): > > Starting with James Monroe, U.S. Presidents have issued signing statements. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits or prohibits this, aside from the specific executive responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” in Article II, Section 3. > > Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush, the current President, has issued over 500 signing statements. [2] > > A November 3, 1993 memo from the Clinton Justice Department explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation: > > If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.[1] But not like W has – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing\_statement#George\_W.\_Bush.27s\_use\_of\_Signing\_Statements:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_Signing_Statements:) > [@](#): > > Critics observe that George W. Bush has often issued signing statements, detailing how the executive branch will construe legislation. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses them as line item veto although the Supreme Court already held the line item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.[3] > > Bush supporters note that previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. However, George W. Bush has issued over 500 signing statements containing at least 750 challenges.[2][2] > > One of the signing statements which has attracted most controversy is the signing of the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody: > > “The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” > > Since, under the “Unitary Executive” theory, the Commander-in-Chief has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law regarding the manner in which the President acts pursuant to executive authority, some critics argue that the President has with that statement reserved the right to waive the “torture ban.”[4] This goes way beyond Clinton’s position. Bush is actually claiming legislative authority in his own right, beyond the veto, and that’s not constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/15 "2006-05-04T15:02:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > True that Dem presidents have used “signing statements” – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing\_statement#Presidential\_usage:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Presidential_usage:) > > But not like W has – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing\_statement#George\_W.\_Bush.27s\_use\_of\_Signing\_Statements:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_Signing_Statements:) > > This goes way beyond Clinton’s position. Bush is actually claiming legislative authority in his own right, beyond the veto, and that’s not constitutional. No, he isn’t, so no, he’s not. > [@](#): > > “The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] **in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President** to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and **consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power**.” Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/16 "2006-05-04T15:08:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, he isn’t, so no, he’s not. Google “weasel-words.” And what exactly are these “constitutional limitations on judicial power”? ---
**Author:** ![Taran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Taran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taran)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/17 "2006-05-04T15:21:10Z")
So…what? He wrote that in order to claim that he’d do the exact thing he swore in his oath of office to do? I think Bush is an idiot, so I at least have some way of explaining a thing like that, but how do _you_ explain it? More generally: if the president’s prerogative powers as defined in article 2 always take precedence over laws passed by Congress, how can Congress limit the president’s power? _Is_ there any way? If not, what checks the president’s authority? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/18 "2006-05-04T15:25:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And what exactly are these “constitutional limitations on judicial power”? “I’ll do whatever I want until the Supreme Court tells me otherwise. Then, and only then, I might, maybe, if I’m feeling like a uniter and not a divider, I’ll stop on my own accord, but only because I want to.” That’s just my guess. ---
**Author:** ![Hung\_Mung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hung\_Mung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hung_Mung)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/19 "2006-05-04T15:29:41Z")
> [@Taran](#): > > More generally: if the president’s prerogative powers as defined in article 2 always take precedence over laws passed by Congress, how can Congress limit the president’s power? _Is_ there any way? If not, what checks the president’s authority? Balls. We suffer from a lack thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264/20 "2006-05-04T15:35:04Z")
Oh, and to add more than a drive by, but well deserved, potshot at our President, I’ll add some interesting articles prepared by the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (in prior years, so it may not reflect the views of the current administration). [Signing Statements in General](http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm) [Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes](http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm) They’re actually brief and pretty well written, which is strange for government attorneys. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-still-appending-signing-statements-to-new-laws-saying-he-wont-obey-them/355264.md?page=2)