# President Obama's signing statement.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 12, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228 "2009-03-12T17:57:42Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/1 "2009-03-12T17:57:42Z")
Many times on these boards the use of signing statements by President Bush has been criticized. This criticism would be most intense when he would declare a portion of a bill as an interference of his constitutional duties and would state his intention to enforce it a certain way or not at all.
Yesterday [President Obama issued his second signing statement - and it is a doozy:](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-the-signing-of-HR-1105/)
> [@](#):
>
> As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional 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 constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns.
>
> ```
> * Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional 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 constitutional 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 constitutional 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 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.
>
> ```
So the question comes up - how were the Bush signing statements materially different from this? And if they weren’t terribly different, shouldn’t President Obama be criticized for this statement as well?
(Not by me, though - I generally thought the signing statements were defensible, and this one looks to be as well.)
---
### Author:  [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/2 "2009-03-12T18:14:55Z")
Could you flesh out your objections, er… since you don’t object, I’m not sure how to characterize your position. So, could you just explain a bit more what makes this signing statement a “doozy”?
---
### Author:  [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/3 "2009-03-12T18:15:50Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#):
>
> Could you flesh out your objections, er… since you don’t object, I’m not sure how to characterize your position. So, could you just explain a bit more what makes this signing statement a “doozy”?
It’s not. He said that this statement is in fact defensible. What I believe **Mr Moto** is looking for is a reason why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/4 "2009-03-12T18:17:45Z")
Based on what I’m seeing here, what Obama is doing is wrong. I heard that he’s floated a similar policy about Executive Orders. The President is supposed to carry out the laws that are enacted by Congress.
As for how Bush’s policy was materially different, Bush created this monster. He wasn’t just acting on precedents set by previous administrations - he was blazing new trails in executive power. And now another President is following those trails.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/5 "2009-03-12T18:24:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> The President is supposed to carry out the laws that are enacted by Congress.
Uh huh. What if those laws are plainly unconstitutional, like requiring the President to seek the approval of an appointed underling before committing our troops to peacekeeping missions? I’m sure you can see the problem here - the Constitution says the President is Commander-in-Chief, not his advisers.
---
### Author:  [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/6 "2009-03-12T18:28:17Z")
I am not happy with the statements. I expected and hoped for something better.He has a long way to go before he becomes Bush.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/7 "2009-03-12T18:43:46Z")
The difference is exactly the one Obama has pointed to in distinguishing his practice from his predecessor: Bush issued more signing statements than any President in history and on much less well-settled constitutional topics.
It is important to know a few things about signing statements. First, they fall into three main categories: rhetorical, constitutional, and ambiguity-resolving. The first category is irrelevant for our purposes. If the signing statement doesn’t change the enforcement of the law, then nobody cares. The latter two can be more problematic. But let’s set aside the ambiguity one for the time being. The fact is that the President has to interpret ambiguity in the law when enforcing it, that’s his job. So even if he does it badly, or with political bias, that is what is supposed to happen in our Democracy. So let’s focus on the category of constitutional objections to enforcing certain provisions.
On the critical constitutional category, Bush II issued more than any other President, and about twice the number of Clinton. The methodology of counting statement and categorizing by type is a little problematic because one statement might modify many different statutes, but by all accounts, Bush’s were both more numerous and more dense (i.e. more provisions affected per statement. Granted, Bush had to deal with a lot more law-making in the constitutionally murky areas of separation of powers than most presidents because of 9/11. But that’s why Obama’s principle makes so much sense. Only use the signing statement on well-settled matters of law.
Bush did not so limit his statements. In 2005, for example, Congress passed the DTA, a law prohibiting the “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” of anyone in U.S. custody. Bush’s signing statement cited vague notions of the unitary executive to both restrict application of the law and also apply the restrictions on _habeas corpus_ included in the law retroactively. Neither was an obvious or well-settled issue. Indeed, SCOTUS ultimately rejected both propositions in _Hamdan_.
I think signing statements are pretty dangerous. It would be much better, from pure principles, if the President would simply veto legislation that is too ambiguous or contains constitutional problems. But, of course, we cannot realistically operate a government that way. So signing statements are probably a necessary evil. But in my mind they should be used only when absolutely necessary and–in the case of constitutional issues–only when the President is on well-settled legal ground. It remains to be seen whether Obama will be able to live up to the principle he has set for himself.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/8 "2009-03-12T18:45:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> The President is supposed to carry out the laws that are enacted by Congress.
For the better part of eight years, Congress pretty much blindly did what the Executive Branch wanted it to do. I don’t think the proper reaction is to subjugate the Executive Branch to everything the Legislative wants to do. ETA: In the end, either branch is fully capable of acting unconstitutionally, and we should be more concerned with whether a particular action or law is constitutional, not whether it causes controversy in the other branches.
The Constitution appears to anticipate that both branches will try to push their agenda (the whole ambition countering ambition thing). I think, in general, we are only worse off when one branch refuses to push back against the ambitions of the other.
---
### Author:  [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/9 "2009-03-12T18:52:36Z")
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> It’s not. He said that this statement is in fact defensible. What I believe **Mr Moto** is looking for is a reason why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
What are you talking about? In the OP, **Mr. Moto** specifically described this as “a doozy.” That implies something about this particular signing statement. I’m curious what that might be. Perhaps **Mr. Moto** might answer this time.
---
### Author:  [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/10 "2009-03-12T18:59:00Z")
Allow me to be the hypocrite you can righteously skewer!
The biggest difference to me is that Obama actually has studied and taught Constitutional law, whereas Bush was just some average hick with connections. So if Obama sticks his nose into the technical details, I’m at least confident he understands the legal intricacies. I think Bush was more likely to amend laws due to his objections on a gut level (and I think he would proudly tell you this). This “doozy” dealing with something that conflicted with the president’s actual authority is more reasonable.
In other words, it isn’t the device of signing statements, it was Bush’s particular use of them that was troubling. In fact, it was just everything about the man. Nope, no cites.
---
### Author:  [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/11 "2009-03-12T18:59:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> The difference is exactly the one Obama has pointed to in distinguishing his practice from his predecessor: Bush issued more signing statements than any President in history and on much less well-settled constitutional topics.
>
> It is important to know a few things about signing statements. First, they fall into three main categories: rhetorical, constitutional, and ambiguity-resolving. The first category is irrelevant for our purposes. If the signing statement doesn’t change the enforcement of the law, then nobody cares. The latter two can be more problematic. But let’s set aside the ambiguity one for the time being. The fact is that the President has to interpret ambiguity in the law when enforcing it, that’s his job. So even if he does it badly, or with political bias, that is what is supposed to happen in our Democracy. So let’s focus on the category of constitutional objections to enforcing certain provisions.
>
> On the critical constitutional category, Bush II issued more than any other President, and about twice the number of Clinton. The methodology of counting statement and categorizing by type is a little problematic because one statement might modify many different statutes, but by all accounts, Bush’s were both more numerous and more dense (i.e. more provisions affected per statement. Granted, Bush had to deal with a lot more law-making in the constitutionally murky areas of separation of powers than most presidents because of 9/11. But that’s why Obama’s principle makes so much sense. Only use the signing statement on well-settled matters of law.
>
> Bush did not so limit his statements. In 2005, for example, Congress passed the DTA, a law prohibiting the “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” of anyone in U.S. custody. Bush’s signing statement cited vague notions of the unitary executive to both restrict application of the law and also apply the restrictions on _habeas corpus_ included in the law retroactively. Neither was an obvious or well-settled issue. Indeed, SCOTUS ultimately rejected both propositions in _Hamdan_.
>
> I think signing statements are pretty dangerous. It would be much better, from pure principles, if the President would simply veto legislation that is too ambiguous or contains constitutional problems. But, of course, we cannot realistically operate a government that way. So signing statements are probably a necessary evil. But in my mind they should be used only when absolutely necessary and–in the case of constitutional issues–only when the President is on well-settled legal ground. It remains to be seen whether Obama will be able to live up to the principle he has set for himself.
What he said. Essentially, the OP doesn’t tell the whole story–it wasn’t just how Bush applied his signing statements (every POTUS did it), but it was the [sheer volume and massive scale](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0201-03.htm) which he applied something that was supposed to be used with a little more discretion:
> [@](#):
>
> Bush has used signing statements to challenge 1,149 laws that were contained in 150 bills, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio . By comparison, all previous presidents combined challenged about 600 total laws.
This averaged to one law challenged every 2.5 days Bush was in office. Obama’s been in office 50 days and can tally only 1 to his credit thus far.
Nobody ever claimed Obama wouldn’t have any signing statements. He just promised he wouldn’t abuse them the way his predecessor did. Nothing he’s done thus far contradicts this promise.
---
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/12 "2009-03-12T19:01:51Z")
I’m torn here, because on the one hand, nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to enforce only those laws which he agrees with; but it does require of him an oath to uphold the Constitution.
I would be happier about signing statements generally if there were an Amendment to the effect of “when the President feels Congress has required him to enforce a law that causes him to violate his Oath, he should submit his objections to the Supreme Court for review.” Or something.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/13 "2009-03-12T19:20:43Z")
IOKIADDI, of course.
> [@](#):
>
> it is a legitimate constitutional 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 constitutional objections…
>
> - 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.
This is apparently what he means by “transparency” - shutting down the whistle blowers.
Bush issued his first signing statement on [March 20](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2001&Submit=DISPLAY). Obama beat him by a week.
Oh well. It isn’t like we didn’t know already that Obama was lying thru his [teeth](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc) all along.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/14 "2009-03-12T19:32:44Z")
I remain ready to be critical of this signing statement. So far, it appears that I should be because it is a “doozy,” or because it was written seven days earlier in Obama’s administration than Bush’s first one. (I don’t see enough meat in **Shodan’s** claim of silencing whistleblowers to see that as what is going on.)
Since I didn’t think Obama would issue no signing statements, I remain ready, but not yet committed, to express my displeasure with this signing statement. Help me over the hump!
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/15 "2009-03-12T19:37:49Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#):
>
> What are you talking about? In the OP, **Mr. Moto** specifically described this as “a doozy.” That implies something about this particular signing statement. I’m curious what that might be. Perhaps **Mr. Moto** might answer this time.
Maybe your understanding of the word is difference from mine, but I’ve always assumed “a doozy” means “something of extraordinary impression, impact, or significance.” It doesn’t necessarily convey disapproval. If my wife gets a surprisingly huge bonus from work I might say “Wow, that bonus is quite a doozy,” but it doesn’t mean I don’t want the money.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/16 "2009-03-12T19:42:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Oh well. It isn’t like we didn’t know already that Obama was lying thru his [teeth](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc) all along.
Quote from that link: “We’re not gonna use signing statements as a way to do an end run around Congress.” Do you feel the example cited in OP is meant to subvert the intentions of Congress?
He does not say in your link that he’s not going to use signing statements at all. They may in fact serve a legitimate function.
This isn’t necessarily a yes-or-no issue; it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that the President using signing statements to clarify how he plans to enforce the law is fine but that but that taking signing statements so far as to defy the law is unacceptable.
---
### Author:  [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/17 "2009-03-12T19:43:28Z")
> [@Maeglin](#):
>
> It’s not. He said that this statement is in fact defensible. What I believe **Mr Moto** is looking for is a reason why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Well it would really seem pretty simple to me. Is the signing statement constitutionally defensible or not? If the Bush signing statements were not, then it’s not the same thing.
---
### Author:  [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/18 "2009-03-12T19:55:16Z")
> [@RickJay](#):
>
> Maybe your understanding of the word is difference from mine, but I’ve always assumed “a doozy” means “something of extraordinary impression, impact, or significance.” It doesn’t necessarily convey disapproval. If my wife gets a surprisingly huge bonus from work I might say “Wow, that bonus is quite a doozy,” but it doesn’t mean I don’t want the money.
I don’t think I’ve said that “doozy” means disapproval. I want to know what makes this signing statement “something of extraordinary impression, impact or significance.”
---
### Author:  [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/19 "2009-03-12T20:47:35Z")
For those of you that are amazed at the quantity of Bush’s signing statements, you should consider this one:
> [@](#):
>
> Today I have signed into law H.R. 1696,a bill to expedite the construction of the World War II memorial in the District of Columbia. It is indeed fitting that this measure becomes law on Memorial Day. This legislation will allow the Nation to express the appreciation due the World War II generation for their selfless sacrifices that preserved the freedoms we all enjoy. I commend the Congress for a truly bipartisan effort to expedite construction of the memorial. Now that debate over the site and basic design is concluded, the time has come for all concerned with the creation of the memorial to act with the same determination and sense of common purpose so wonderfully displayed by those we honor. We must get the job done, so that those who served are able to see the Nation’s permanent expression of remembrance and thanks.
IOW, he often just commentated[sic] on the bill in question, often just underscoring his support for the bill. He wasn’t always trying to usurp constitutional authority from Congress.
A complete list of his signing statements is here;
> **[List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush](http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm)**
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [March 12, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/20 "2009-03-12T20:51:12Z")
The thing is, most of the criticism against Bush I’ve seen here regarding this issue centered around signing statements in general (or even in the aggregate) and not particular ones. So even if Obama does engage in the same practice but does it less, the people who called Bush out for a supposedly unconstitutional practice should only be partially satisfied, right? Or perhaps they ought to explain why their previous criticism might have been too far reaching.
Now, of course individual statements can be debated - but I haven’t seen much of that here. Only one poster has brought up a particular set of signing statements. I’d be happy to discuss them individually, but dismissing them as always bad seems counterproductive to me.
For better or worse, since the Reagan Administration signing statements have been used far more often by presidents of both parties. And if they are evil they likely are a necessary one in an era of omnibus catchall legislation - and far less onerous than a line item veto.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228.md?page=2)