# President Obama's signing statement. **URL:** \ **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:** 5
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/81 "2009-03-13T17:55:52Z")
So, as regards the OP, it appears I shall have to continue to wait for the justification for my dismay/disappointment/displeasure/outrage. It appears I will not even find out what makes this particular signing statement “a doozy.” **Maeglin** and **RickJay** , I’m getting the sense that **Mr. Moto** does not want to explain why this was a doozy. Since you guys seemed to know what he was talking about, would you mind cluing me in? What made this a “doozy”? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/82 "2009-03-13T18:00:08Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > After all, Obama is the Messiah and even if has had no other achievement other than getting elected he’s the ONE. > [@Anduril](#): > > given that he has not demonstrated any competence beyond getting elected through the graces of the almighty MSM, Kindly stop spouting lies. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/83 "2009-03-13T18:00:17Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > So, as regards the OP, it appears I shall have to continue to wait for the justification for my dismay/disappointment/displeasure/outrage. It appears I will not even find out what makes this particular signing statement “a doozy.” > > **Maeglin** and **RickJay** , I’m getting the sense that **Mr. Moto** does not want to explain why this was a doozy. Since you guys seemed to know what he was talking about, would you mind cluing me in? What made this a “doozy”? I just took a “doozy” here to mean an event of some import. A whopper. A big 'un. **Mr. Moto** said that he personally found the signing statement to be “defensible”. He wanted to know whether the Liberal Millions felt the same way, and if so, how is it different from signing statements used by more objectionable presidents. This question has been answered admirably by the Teeming Counselors. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/84 "2009-03-13T18:07:25Z")
Well, it is true that it was quite lengthy as these things go, and it did explicitly state that he won’t follow certain legislation or would follow certain others according to his own interpretation of the law and not necessarily Congress’s intent. Since these actions created considerable controversy during the Bush administration when attached to other legislation - and since that controversy ran the gamut from a criticism of the practice to a criticism of Bush - I wanted to see what people thought of Obama’s action. I thought that was a fair question, and I expected many different answers. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/85 "2009-03-13T18:10:51Z")
And how do you now view the issue, **Mr. Moto**? Do you agree that there is a principled distinction between Bush’s practice of signing statements and Obama’s thus far? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/86 "2009-03-13T18:13:06Z")
Ah well, this silly little hijack aside, I would just like to point out that as I’m certainly not any dyed in the wool supporter of Obama, I can at least respect the fact that his intellect is considerable, his time as a professor of law and as editor in chief of the Harvard law review (and especially the manner in which he conducted himself there) speak to considerable legal chops, and he is to be taken quite seriously on legal matters. With that being said, I’m not committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Obama’s legal positions can be as wrong as any other lawyers’. Now, preamble out of the way: I don’t much like the concept of signing statements on points of law. If a sitting President is going to go beyond clarifying ambiguity and go as far as to state that he won’t follow/be bound by any one of the laws of the land, I’d much prefer that the bill simply be vetoed, or that the law itself be challenged in a court of law and defeated or upheld on its constitutionality. I can understand and respect that there’s tension between the branches of government. Checks and balances are a dynamic process, and I’m fine with that. But I do get uncomfortable when the executive decides what actions of the legislative branch are and are not constitutional. It seems to me that should a function reserved for the judicial branch and that if the President can’t manage a veto, then he’s bound by the law until the point at which it’s overturned as unconstitutional. I don’t have a problem, either, with the SCOTUS fast-tracking problematic legislation so it can immediately be analyzed on its merits and overturned post haste if need be. But I am very apprehensive of a POTUS who believes he can simply disregard the law because he feels it’s not valid. _Even if he’s right,_ I don’t believe that’s a power that the President should have. Perhaps I’m missing something (and I’d be more than willing to retract or modify my statements if I’m wrong), but the SCOTUS should be able to quickly issue injunctions on any new law until its ultimate constitutionality is determined. At least, the SCOTUS should have enough information to do so if the law is egregious enough that the POTUS could state definitively that it was so wrong that he simply didn’t intend to follow it. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/87 "2009-03-13T19:05:31Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > The University of Chicaco claims that it extended Obama offers to become a full-time, tenure track member of the university. Had he accepted, he would have been, in name as well as in fact, a PROFESSOR. By your logic, this would have conferred upon him a certain EXPERTISE. > > But since he was only a LECTURER, you argue that we cannot presume he has a great deal of expertise. > > Supposing that your claim is true, how exactly does the process of accepting an offer of full-time university work confer EXPERTISE that one could not presume before? If this were the case, how would any university hire anyone? > > Your arguments are so absurd and specious, I only continue the hijack as a form of minor intellectual indulgence and to make absolutely certain that all silent readers are entirely aware of the utter paucity of your logic and the irrelevance of your position. The University of Chicago claims that it extended an offer for full Professor - but given the situation, I’m not entirely sure that the University of Chicago would be motivated to say that he wasn’t offered squat had the opposite been true. The incontrovertible fact is that he is NOT a professor and you cannot say anything about his being an “expert” in constitutional law on the basis of that and on the basis of the fact that he is unpublished. It’s really a simple thing to wrap your mind around. I don’t understand why you’re having problems. And yes, I know it’s a side issue, but you keep on insisting that he IS an expert. (else, why even respond to the post) And clearly, you left your cognitive faculties somewhere, because FinnAgain hasn’t refuted anything. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/88 "2009-03-13T19:18:17Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > The University of Chicago claims that it extended an offer for full Professor - but given the situation, I’m not entirely sure that the University of Chicago would be motivated to say that he wasn’t offered squat had the opposite been true. The incontrovertible fact is that he is NOT a professor and you cannot say anything about his being an “expert” in constitutional law on the basis of that and on the basis of the fact that he is unpublished. It’s really a simple thing to wrap your mind around. I don’t understand why you’re having problems. And yes, I know it’s a side issue, but you keep on insisting that he IS an expert. (else, why even respond to the post) > > And clearly, you left your cognitive faculties somewhere, because FinnAgain hasn’t refuted anything. It may be a “simple” thing, but it is very much a wrong thing. This often happens. Your answer is non-responsive. You also have no basis in fact to question the veracity of the claims made by the University of Chicago. You have clearly never been to law school and do not know very much about the actual behavior of law lecturers or professors. In fact, you don’t seem to know much about the behavior of university faculty search committees, either. Somehow, I am not surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/89 "2009-03-13T19:33:32Z")
> [@](#): > > You also have no basis in fact to question the veracity of the claims made by the University of Chicago. I can only appeal to your common sense. Obama was being groomed to be the Democratic nominee. He had a lot of pull particularly in Chicago and in that school. He can become a generous benefactor to the school or not when he’s President depending on how they handled that question. > [@](#): > > You have clearly never been to law school and do not know very much about the actual behavior of law lecturers or professors. I taught Psychology at a university at an Instructor level and I can say that where I taught, “Professor” is a title that confers distinction and denotes a higher level of scholarship. I don’t believe the university I taught in is any different from the University of Chicago in that respect. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/90 "2009-03-13T19:42:29Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > But I do get uncomfortable when the executive decides what actions of the legislative branch are and are not constitutional. It seems to me that should a function reserved for the judicial branch and that if the President can’t manage a veto, then he’s bound by the law until the point at which it’s overturned as unconstitutional. Except that we require the President to swear an oath to uphold that very Constitution. We are looking at this problem in light of a strong Executive and a (until recently) rubber-stamp Legislature, but it must also be looked at the opposite way: a strong Legislature and a weak Executive. The Legislature should not be permitted to overturn the Constitution by fiat any more than the Executive should be so allowed, to pass unconstitutional laws as part of an omnibus package and compel the Executive to abide by them. Resolving that conflict — how to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law, even unconstitutional laws — is really one thing that the U.S. Constitution does poorly. I too would like to see a fast-track system where a law can be submitted for legal analysis, not by White House counsel, but by the Supreme Court. That’s their _job._ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/91 "2009-03-13T20:08:37Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > I taught Psychology at a university at an Instructor level and I can say that where I taught, “Professor” is a title that confers distinction and denotes a higher level of scholarship. I don’t believe the university I taught in is any different from the University of Chicago in that respect. Look, you might find this hard to believe, but it is possible that the University of Chicago does not subscribe to your definition of “Senior Lecturer.” The law school itself (even in your own cite) has clearly stated that the difference between Senior Lecturer and those who hold the position of Professor is merely that Senior Lecturers are not on a tenure track. To put this in clearer perspective, [Richard Posner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner) is now a Senior Lecturer at Chicago. Posner is widely regarded as a highly respected jurist and perhaps one of the most notable legal minds of our times. I understand that you think “Senior Lecturer” is equal in status to “adjunct instructor,” or something similar. But it stands to reason that if Judge Posner is given the position of Senior Lecturer, the term, as applied by the University of Chicago to its faculty, is indicative of someone who is highly valued by the school. Besides all that complex logic, it’s just f’in’ stupid to think that one of the top law schools in the country would hire teachers that they do not consider to be experts in law. ---
**Author:** ![Piker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@Piker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Piker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/92 "2009-03-13T20:24:37Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Resolving that conflict — how to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law, even unconstitutional laws — is really one thing that the U.S. Constitution does poorly. I too would like to see a fast-track system where a law can be submitted for legal analysis, not by White House counsel, but by the Supreme Court. That’s their _job._ Two thoughts: 1. The Constitution did anticipate this situation by providing the Executive with the veto power. The funny thing is, when looking back on the original understanding of the constitution, that was the purpose of the veto power: to prevent the enactment of unconstitutional laws. The Framers did not consider the veto to be a tool for “mere” policy disagreement. However, the rise of the popular presidency and the centrality of the executive in modern politics has made the veto power part of the policy making process. Unfortunately for the Framers (and all those who deify everything they wrote or said) they “screwed up” by not anticipating the sheer breadth of omnibus bills, where vetoing because of one minor constitutional wrinkle would create a seriously defective process. It is for this reason that the institution using presidential signing statements to signal constitutional disagreements evolved, and was intended for use when the constitutional reservations were either 1) well settled or 2) amenable to judicial resolution. It is the Bush Administration’s departure from that convention that many disagreed with, and I detailed in my post above. 1. I don’t know how I feel about fast tracking issues to the Supreme Court whenever they arise. There are some areas of the constitution that I feel are necessary to keep ambiguous, unless the Court _absolutely must_ rule on a case. The ambiguity goes a long way in ensuring respect for the separation of powers, and heading us off from any major constitutional crisis. For example, the constitutionality of jurisdiction-stripping certain issues from the Supreme Court docket, is not something I would like to see Congress force the Court’s hand on. -Piker ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/93 "2009-03-13T20:35:58Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Well, it is true that it was quite lengthy as these things go, and it did explicitly state that he won’t follow certain legislation or would follow certain others according to his own interpretation of the law and not necessarily Congress’s intent. Is that accurate? My understanding is he’s saying the laws Congress has passed are overstepping their bounds as a matter of settled law. Thus it’s not HIS interpretation of the law, but THE interpretation of the law, as set forth by the SCOTUS. Many of Bush’s most controversial signing statements were either arrogating new powers to his office, or stating his intent to not abide by the statute with nothing except his authority as POTUS behind it. Using a signing statement to say “hey, this legislation is over-broad and violates established precedent, as defined by the SCOTUS” is very different. Congressional intent is not sacred. Indeed in places where it violates separation of powers or other constitutional principles, it should be disregarded. Ideally a veto, but that’s not how Washington works at this point in time. Since portions of this bill had essentially been ruled unconstitutional already by SCOTUS precedent, I see no reason not to note that upon signing. The POTUS is bound by SCOTUS decisions, so he may as well say “I won’t follow this portion of the law because constitutional caselaw says it is unconstitutional.” Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/94 "2009-03-13T20:46:30Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Perhaps I’m missing something (and I’d be more than willing to retract or modify my statements if I’m wrong), but the SCOTUS should be able to quickly issue injunctions on any new law until its ultimate constitutionality is determined. At least, the SCOTUS should have enough information to do so if the law is egregious enough that the POTUS could state definitively that it was so wrong that he simply didn’t intend to follow it. The [case or controversy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy) requirement for the SCOTUS to take up an issue generally prevents pre-emptive injunctions against new laws. The attorneys in the thread have cited previous caselaw which supports Obama’s signing statement saying this law is overbroad and runs afoul of well settled law. Perhaps it’s time to re-visit it and see if a new case would change the law, but that doesn’t seem to be Obama’s approach. He’s just saying that this law is in violation of established precedent and he’s not going to defy SCOTUS precedent in order to follow Congressional intent. As always, it’s more complicated than that, but Obama seems to be on pretty firm ground, legally speaking. He’s not backing up his signing statement with nothing more than his own authority as POTUS. He’s got SCOTUS precedent on his side. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/95 "2009-03-13T21:13:05Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > **Maeglin** and **RickJay** , I’m getting the sense that **Mr. Moto** does not want to explain why this was a doozy. Since you guys seemed to know what he was talking about, would you mind cluing me in? What made this a “doozy”? I never stated I thought the signing statement was a “doozy.” I was solely responding to what I thought was your suggestion, in Post 9, that the word **meant he necessarily disagreed with Obama’s position on the legislation** , which I thought was not necessarily a safe assumption. That was the entire extent of my comment and I’m not in a position to speak in detail for another poster. If you want information from him, get it from him. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/96 "2009-03-14T04:33:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Being Commander-in-Chief doesn’t give the President the right to send troops wherever he wants. Article One, Section Eight: _The Congress shall have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress._ Article Two, Section Two: _The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States._ That’s pretty clear: Congress has the power to decide if troops are sent on a peace-keeping mission (or a military mission) not the President. Once Congress has decided, the President executes the mission. Couple of things here. First of all, Congress may have a check on presidential power here - but it does not extend to making him get approval for a military action from an aide. That is an interference of his constitutional responsibilities and a ducking of the powers and responsibilities that Congress has to itself. Secondly - you imply that the president must act on laws passed by Congress - while case law shows that this is not always so. This was strongly implied in _Marbury v. Madison_ and made explicit in _Mississippi v. Johnson_. Clearly presidential duties may take a ministerial form that allow for little discretion, or a discretionary form that allows considerable flexibility. Frankly I regard signing statements as mere notice that a president intends to do what in the past he did with little notice. I wouldn’t expect a court to give the statement much weight - but the actions being announced may well be constitutional or may well not be. And these actions could be held or overturned by a court - keeping these precedents in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/97 "2009-03-14T04:53:16Z")
> [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has been sharply tilted [by Roberts and Alito, who had pro-Unitary-Executive records before their appointment, as discussed in earlier chapters] toward a sympathetic view of executive power Want to bet there’s going to be some rethinking on this issue? > [@](#): > > Couple of things here. First of all, Congress may have a check on presidential power here - but it does not extend to making him get approval for a military action from an aide. That is an interference of his constitutional responsibilities and a ducking of the powers and responsibilities that Congress has to itself. > > Secondly - you imply that the president must act on laws passed by Congress - while case law shows that this is not always so. This was strongly implied in Marbury v. Madison and made explicit in Mississippi v. Johnson. > > Clearly presidential duties may take a ministerial form that allow for little discretion, or a discretionary form that allows considerable flexibility. Frankly I regard signing statements as mere notice that a president intends to do what in the past he did with little notice. > > I wouldn’t expect a court to give the statement much weight - but the actions being announced may well be constitutional or may well not be. And these actions could be held or overturned by a court - keeping these precedents in mind. I’m not saying that Congress can determine every action a President takes. But the power to declare war is one power that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. So, yes, Congress can put whatever conditions it wants on it. Congress can’t require the President to seek approval from an aide - but Congress can say that it won’t approve a military action if the President doesn’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/98 "2009-03-14T05:01:53Z")
The issue was never Bush’s use of signing statements, but his _abuse_ of them. just like his _abuse_ of Executive Privilege (or his abuse of booze and blow). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/99 "2009-03-14T05:29:52Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Well, it is true that it was quite lengthy as these things go[…] Is it? How long do these things usually go? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/100 "2010-02-24T20:15:20Z")
I’m bumping this thread because of a very interesting update. Seems President Obama was stung pretty badly by criticism of his signing statements from liberal quarters last year, and he has curtailed the practice of issuing them. However, he still plans not to enforce sections of laws he finds questionable: > [@](#): > > Already, Mr. Obama has had to reconcile his campaign-trail criticism of Mr. Bush for excessive use of so-called signing statements to bypass parts of legislation with his own use of such tactics. After a bipartisan furor in Congress last year, Mr. Obama stopped issuing such signing statements, but aides said last month that he still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch. [From here.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html) So - the practice might end on paper, but the actual practice that people found objectionable - not enforcing the law - will continue. How will we know which laws he will and won’t enforce? However problematic the signing statement may have been, at least it had the benefit of transparency. This appears to be sacrificed for the sake of appearances. I supported the signing statement in the OP. I can’t support this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228.md?page=6)