Signing Statements & Signs of the Times

Signing statements are notes attached by a President to a bill he is signing, indicating his understanding of what he is committing himself to.  There are two obvious reasons for including such a statement with his signature: first, he wants to control the way the law will work and give him some leverage if his interpretation differs from that of Congress; and second, he wants to control his responsibility for the way the law turns out to work. 

I am not sure when this practice began, but President Clinton included such statements on a regular basis, Bush followed suit, and now President Obama has issued his first.  See the Volokh Conspiracy.  Bush came under a lot of criticism for his use of this device, especially by Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe, who won a Pulitzer for it.  The complaint was that Bush was trying to get the power to interpret the law as he pleased. 

Well, let’s take a look at Obama’s signing statement, attached to the Omnibus Spending Bill.  I note this provision:

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.

So Obama is telling us in advance how he will read the bill as it applies to himself.  Okay.  And then there is this one:

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.

So Obama is telling us in advance that he will control communications between his executive branch officials and employees and Congress, regardless of what the law seems to say. 

Now I have no problem with either of Obama’s qualifications.  They both seem to me to protect the President’s power to do his job: negotiate with other powers, and control the executive branch.  But this is the very thing that seemed so ghastly to the MSM when Bush did it.  If you were looking for different kind of chief executive in this regard, well, look again. 

Signing statements don’t matter much.  Short of a court case, the President can do what he wants in such matters, and Congress can control him only by refusing to give him what he wants by way of legislation, authorization, and confirmation.  That is the way the system is supposed to work. 

In the event of adjudication, courts don’t pay much attention to signing statements.  That is also how it should be.  The President is given the power to veto a bill or sign it, not the power to amend it.  Signing statements are useful as means of dialogue between the White House and Congress.  They are nothing more. 

Comments

[Moirtyunlinly]

Great...