One doesn’t have any significance in either the constitution or the law by itself. An administration’s refusal to comply with a constitutional law does, though. The question is left open as to whether the law not being complied with is constitutional.
The reaction to Bush’s blanket use of the things was largely because of his stated reason so often being that “unitary executive” nonsense, which he claimed in effect gave him absolute authority to do whatever he thought fit in the cause of national defense.
Would anyone like to assert that Obama’s explanation of his claims of the unconstitutionality of those certain provisions is equivalent to that? Mr. Moto pretty clearly thinks this “doozy” is, although without an analysis any deeper than tu quoque.
Do you think it is constitutional for Congress to direct the president to engage in negotiations with another country on a particular subject? Obama and Bush seem to agree that that would be an unconstitutional law.
That’s true. But as I noted, if you look just at the constitutional conflict statements, he signed almost twice the number that Clinton did. There’s a great study on this (which is pretty pro-Bush, actually, but reports the numbers objectively), but it isn’t available for free. If you have access to law reviews, this is the citation: Curtis A. Bradley & Eric A. Posner, Presidential Signing Statements and Executive Power, 23 Const. Commentary 307 (2006).
Bush’s count (up to 2006) was 104 constitutional signing statements, while Clinton had 64 in total. By contrast, Bush only signed 25 “rhetorical” statements, while Clinton signed 311.
So, your point is actually exactly the opposite of what you think it is. Bush not only had more total aggregate signing statements, but a much higher percentage of them were of the constitutional conflict kind than the rhetorical kind.
That’s what I was wondering too. The giant chasm of difference between invoking executive privilege or protecting classified information to “shutting down whistleblowers” is one Shodan apparently doesn’t see.
It’s like using signing statements at all. It can be fine, it can not be fine, depending on what they are being used to do. If it is used to properly invoke executive privilege or protect classified information, it’s fine. If it’s used to hide evidence of wrongdoing, it’s not. Same tool. Different jobs. One is proper, one isn’t. It’s a tough concept to grasp for some, apparently.
I’ll repeat what I said about signing statements when Bush used them (insert comment about poor search functionality here): “Personally, I find nothing inherently wrong with signing statements. I’m NOT much concerned with what any President says, I’m much more interested in what they do.”
Anyone who is actually interested in signing statements, their history, and use by Bush, can read the ABA’s report on signing statements. It’s a good introduction, and includes analysis and recommendations regarding the difference between positive and negatives of signing statements.
Might I suggest that, if a discussion of this particularities of this signing statement were the true purpose of your OP, it might have been a good idea for you to start out expressing your actual view on them. Because I took the OP as only a slightly more intelligently phrased version of Shodan’s IOKIADDI post.
This is like pointing to a giraffe and asking how it is not a lion. It is just isn’t. He is citing a principle established in US law since INS v. Chada. Probably earlier. The unitary executive is primarily about congressional interference with intra-executive decision-making; the Chada principle is primarily about Congress’ ability to retain executive-style power in the form of Congressional approval of enforcement actions and legislative vetoes. They are related insofar as both are vaguely about separation of powers, but I think that’s about as far as it goes.
No, my point is exactly what I stated. You can’t use total numbers (like the 1100 floated earlier as evidence of ‘massive scale’) to make a judgement on signing statements. You broke it down quite nicely in support of that.
I agree 100% with you that if you want to compare presidents, you need to examine the content of the statement, and not just use sheer numbers.
I meant only that breaking it down into sub-categories makes Bush look worse, not better, since a higher proportion of his statements were of the controversial non-rhetorical kind.
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.
As a lawyer who also taught Con-Law courses that puts Obama about on part with any of a dozen advisers who helped Bush make decisions while President. The job of President is big enough that I don’t really think any one individuals particular abilities means his administration is more or less likely to be taking the best course of action.
For example no one would doubt Eisenhower’s military leadership ability, that doesn’t mean that by extension any military decision Eisenhower made would have to be viewed as superior to any military decision that say, Truman or Roosevelt (the latter) made. Both Truman and Roosevelt had a lot of advisers who were just as well informed and qualified, and when Eisenhower was President his scope of decision making was so broad he would never be able to fully devote his attention to all the details of a military issue like he could have when he was actually a General.
Essentially, just because someone taught constitutional law doesn’t mean we have to assume from the start they are going to make superior decisions in terms of constitutionality.
Shit, some of the same men that helped draft the Constitution itself were later part of the Congress that passed the Sedition Act–one of the most clearly unconstitutional laws ever passed in this country.
Meh. Obama is no expert in Consitutional law. Bush’s legal adviser would have better qualifications than Obama. Being that Obama was NOT a success as a lawyer, we cannot claim with any confidence how much more (or less) capable he is at understanding Consitutional Law than Bush and his legal advisers.
I’ll also point out that, despite Chadha, the legislature has still passed legislation that includes these so called types of “legislative vetoes”. And, in times prior, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton also all included signing statements saying almost the same thing Obama’s did, that they would not be bound by the provisions that exercise undue power over executive discretion in spending.
“Despite Chadha and its progeny’s prohibition on legislative vetoes, Congress continued to include them in legislation, and Presidents continued to sign them. [FN136] One of the foremost scholars [FN137] in the field claims, from the time of the Chadha decision on June 23, 1983, through 1999, more than four hundred new vetoes were enacted. [FN138] At times, Presidents Reagan, Bush (I), and Clinton balked at the unconstitutionality of such provisions but nevertheless signed them into law. [FN139]” From Anthony M. Bottenfield, CONGRESSIONAL CREATIVITY: THE POST-CHADHA STRUGGLE FOR AGENCY CONTROL IN THE ERA OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS, 112 Penn St. L. Rev. 1125 (2008).
Considering that one of the clauses of the signing statement refers to efforts to “Control Communications with the Congress” and another refers to attempts “to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees”, it sure sounds that way to me.
I presume the bills that originated in Congress, were voted on in Congress, and passed thru Congress on the way to Obama’s desk, therefore expressed the intentions of Congress. Obama doesn’t like that, so he is using a signing statement to get around it.
Unless, as I suspect, the phrase “do an end run around Congress” has no definite meaning now that Obama has been elected.
Since the search function works poorly, I only did a couple searches, but maybe you can help me out and point out the posts where you condemned Bush for doing an “end run around Congress”, with his signing statements. I just couldn’t find them, because I’m sure they’re there. Unless “do an end run around Congress” only came into being Jan. 21, 2009.
What I could find, however, was you saying: “President Clinton has already submitted signing statements. And yet the Republic survived. Of course, if Bush does the same, the Usual Suspects hear the thundering jackboots of facism.” Nothing about an “end run around Congress.”
Do you see how pointless this game you constantly play is?
Believe it or not, I think you and I agree on signing statements. As I said: “It’s like using signing statements at all. It can be fine, it can not be fine, depending on what they are being used to do. If it is used to properly invoke executive privilege or protect classified information, it’s fine. If it’s used to hide evidence of wrongdoing, it’s not. Same tool. Different jobs.” I get the feeling that you, if you gave yourself a chance to actually get beyond stupid partisan hackery, would agree, especially because you previously posted this: “I will probably take the same attitude towards a Democratic President using signing statements as you do for Slick Willie using them. I’ll support him (or her) when right, but not otherwise.” But rather than engage in that debate, you come in with your typical bullshit. Color me shocked.
Sure, no problem. All that you need to do is provide a cite from before the 2000 elections where Bush said he would not use signing statements, and I will condemn him for breaking that promise just as I have done for Obama.
No, because it is very far from pointless.
Bush uses signing statements, and y’all hear the thundering jackboots, just exactly as I said. Obama does the same, and suddenly it is just fine to use signing statements.
Well, that’s fine. The one you need to figure out if you agree with him or not isn’t me; it’s Obama. Back during the campaign, signing statements were wrong and terrible and he wasn’t going to sign them. Now two months into his tenure he is doing exactly what he promised he wasn’t going to do.
Same thing with Obama’s nonsense about earmarks. Six months ago or so, earmarks were awful, and he promised he wouldn’t allow them. Then he got elected, and the very first bill he signs has thousands of them, including ones his own fucking staff put in there.
Bush –> inherits balanced budget (and recession). –> creates deficit. Bad Bush.
Obama –> inherits deficit (and recession) –> increases deficit by a fuck of a lot more –> Obama is brilliantperfectnice.
Bush –> uses signing statements –> subverting Constitution –> Bad Bush.
