Skip to main content

The following is a slightly altered crossposting from ePluribus Media; the majority of the text posted both there and here is an almost-verbatim copy of the response I'd made in a discussion thread on The Civil Discourse Society, a Delphi forum.

One of the biggest abuses of Presidential authority by the Bush Administration has been the use and misuse of Presidential Signing Statements in order to create and extend a precedent for the President's capacity to "legislate from White House" -- above and beyond the President's inherent authority to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."1

Below, I'll provide some additional context pertaining to the use of signing statements and some excerpts from various government documents, including the US Constitution and the Georgetown Law Faculty Blog, which examine the popular justifications currently in support of Presidential signing statements  and why the Bush Administration's application of them is so objectionable.

IANAL: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

In a recent online discussion, the following passage was brought up in order to broach -- and presumably rebut -- the topic of the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements by justifying their use through the explanations provided by the Clinton Administration.

___

"These functions [signing statements] include (1) explaining to the public, and particularly to constituencies interested in the bill, what the President believes to be the likely effects of its adoption, (2) directing subordinate officers within the Executive Branch how to interpret or administer the enactment, and (3) informing Congress and the public that the Executive believes that a particular provision would be unconstitutional in certain of its applications, or that it is unconstitutional on its face, and that the provision will not be given effect by the Executive Branch to the extent that such enforcement would create an unconstitutional condition.
___

"Clinton did it too" doesn't make it right, however; while there are valid reasons for the inclusion of signing statements and the use of same in the place of a Presidential veto, the current implementation as practiced by the Bush Administration -- and thus setting a precedent for all future Administrations, regardless of party affiliation -- amounts to a frightening dissolution of the checks and balances placed upon the branches of the government by our founding fathers.

The excerpt above comes from here, and was issued by the Clinton Administration with regard to the use of Presidential signing statements. It is a statement that, taken by itself, is essentially accurate pertaining to the intent and justification behind the use of signing statements.

That particular excerpt comes from a memorandum by Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General at the time (November 3, 1993), and was sent to  Bernard N. Nussbaum, Counsel to the President. It was prefaced by the following:

___

Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional, or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes.
___

Following similar lines of justification, a statement made by Ms. Michelle Broadman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel , Department of Justice was presented to United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on June 27, 2006, further attempting to extend and justify the use of Presidential signing statements by the Bush Administration:

___

By our count, President Bush raised this concern approximately 62 times in his 110 constitutional signing statements. President Bush's statements regarding this issue are nearly identical to the statements issued by past Presidents, including Presidents Eisenhower and Clinton. Compare, e.g., Statement on Signing Legislation on Amendments to the Mexico-United States Agreement on the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank, 40 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 550, 550-51 (Apr. 5, 2004) (President Bush) ("Sections 2(5) and 2(6) of the Act purport to require the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury to include a description of discussions between the United States and Mexican governments. In order to avoid intrusion into the President's negotiating authority and ability to maintain the confidentiality of diplomatic negotiations, the executive branch will not interpret this provision to require the disclosure of either the contents of diplomatic communications or specific plans for particular negotiations in the future."), with, e.g., Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 2 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 1685, 1688 (1999) (President Clinton) ("A number of other provisions of this bill raise serious constitutional concerns. Because the President is the Commander in Chief and the Chief Executive under the Constitution, the Congress may not interfere with the President's duty to protect classified and other sensitive national security information or his responsibility to control the disclosure of such information by subordinate officials of the executive branch (sections 1042, 3150, and 3164) . . . . To the extent that these provisions conflict with my constitutional responsibilities in these areas, I will construe them where possible to avoid such conflicts, and where it is impossible to do so, I will treat them as advisory. I hereby direct all executive branch officials to do likewise."); Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, 2 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 1611, 1612 (1997) (Nov. 18, 1997) (President Clinton) ("Because of the President's constitutional role, the Congress may not prevent the President from controlling the disclosure of classified and other sensitive information by subordinate officials of the executive branch.").
___

Her statement concluded with the following:

___

The constitutional signing statements discussed here are a small, but central, sampling of the many statements issued by American Presidents. These statements are an established part of the President's responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const., art. II, � 3. Members of Congress and the President will occasionally disagree on a constitutional question. This disagreement does not relieve the President of the obligation to interpret and uphold the Constitution, but instead supports the candid public announcement of the President's views.
___

There are inherent problems, however, between the concept of "theory" and "practice" with regard to the use and abuse of signing statements -- not only has the practice been extended from the time of the Reagan Administration (and as indicated above, also used and abused to an extent by the Clinton Administration), it has reached near-dizzying heights through the blatant overuse and misuse by the Bush Administration.

In order to avoid having to attempt to retread an already well-documented and well-formed legal opinion, here's a valuable summation from the Georgetown Law Faculty Blog that points out four of the most problematic issues with the manner and method with which the Bush Administration approaches and implements -- and thus abuses -- the inherent purpose of Presidential signing statements:

___

First, in this Administration nonenforcement appears to be a strategy of first resort, not last. The guidelines that OLC set forth
during the Clinton Administration (discussed above) place a focus on the Constitution’s structure. Those guidelines make clear that the President is to act in ways that respect the important roles of Congress and the courts in the process of constitutional interpretation and the resolution of constitutional controversy. The frequent and cavalier declarations of constitutional objections by the Bush Administration demonstrate that it pays little or no heed to these fundamental constitutional values.

Second, in many cases this Administration’s

signing statements do not plausibly reflect legislative intent.

More often than not, the Administration has justified such constructions as necessary in order to avoid a serious constitutional question.  But even if the avoidance canon applies to the President’s interpretations just as strongly as it does to the judiciary’s interpretations, it is triggered only where the statute in question is genuinely ambiguous. See, e.g., United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop.  This Administration has too frequently misused the avoidance canon to distort the meaning of statutory provisions that were not ambiguous—both with respect to provisions President Bush signed into

law and provisions long on the books.  (Concededly, previous
Administrations have also engaged in dubious use of the canon, albeit not with the frequency or audacity of the current Administration.  However, in many (but not all) such cases, private individuals were not affected, and Congress knew
exactly what was going on and had mechanisms to counter the nonenforcement.)

If the President believes that a statute, fairly construed, would be unconstitutional, he should simply say so, and consider whether to enforce it or to take some other action to address his constitutional concern, rather than couching his objection as an implausible form of statutory "construction."

Third, the whole point of such signing

statements—the reason that making them is actually a valuable practice (see above)—is that they make transparent the President’s intent to decline to enforce statutes in the manner contemplated by Congress.  But President Bush’s statements for the most part do not serve this function.  Many of the objections are written in such general and opaque terms, and with resort to vague assertions about an intent to "construe" the provisions in conformity with the Commander-in-Chief Clause, the "unitary executive," etc., that it is
impossible to know just what they mean in terms of how the Administration is implementing the statutes in question. According to Prof. Cooper, in President Bush's first term alone he offered 505 constitutional objections to various statutory provisions, and many of those objections applied to multiple provisions within a particular bill.  This might mean that the Executive is refusing to implement hundreds of statutes enacted since 2001 (and many enacted prior to that date, too), or construing them in an implausible and unexpected way—or, then again, it might not.  Congress and the public are offered no clear understanding of the legal theory of unconstitutionality, or of precisely which statutory provisions will not be enforced, under what circumstances, and why.  The statements are, instead, mere placeholders, with respect to a vast number of statutory provisions, signaling that the Administration reserves the right not to enforce numerous unspecified provisions.

Moreover, the President is not telling Congress when he does refuse to enforce (or when he construes the statute in a manner that the legislature could not possibly have contemplated).  A President may seek to enforce his own

conception of the Constitution, even if it is a sharp break with the past.  But when he does so, he is constitutionally obliged to do so in broad daylight, with adequate opportunity for the other branches and the public to understand the legal theory and the practice and to respond accordingly.  Checks and balances can't possibly work if the revolution is occurring in secret, or if the Administration publicly insists that all is business as usual, that all statutes and treaties are being implemented as they always have been, while simultaneously "implementing" such statutes in a manner that comes as a great surprise to Congress and the public. Precisely in order to deal with these problems—to provide Congress the opportunity to evaluate, oversee, and check the President's nonenforcement—federal law already requires that such decisions be disclosed to Congress.  Section 530D(a)(1)(A)(i) of title 28 of the U.S. Code provides that the Attorney General "shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice . . . establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain . . . from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute . . . whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional." Subsection (e) of that statute extends this reporting obligation to the head of each executive agency or military department that implements such a policy of constitutional noncompliance.  Such a report must be made within 30 days after the policy is implemented, and must "include a complete and detailed statement of the relevant issues and background (including a complete and detailed statement of the reasons for the policy or determination)."  (The statute includes provisions for redaction of classified information in copies of the report distributed outside a congressional committee or agency.)

The Bush Administration, however, considers this reporting requirement itself to be constitutionally dubious, and thus appears to be refusing to enforce it, too. In his 2002 signing statement to the law containing the latest iteration of the provision, the President wrote:

Section 202 of the Act adds a new section 530D to title 28, United States Code, that purports to impose on the executive branch substantial obligations for reporting to the Congress activities of the Department of Justice involving challenges to or nonenforcement of law that conflicts with the Constitution. The executive branch shall construe section 530D of title 28, and related provisions in section 202 of the Act, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authorities of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties. To implement section 202(b)(3) of the Act, the Attorney General, on my behalf, shall advise the heads of executive agencies of the enactment of section 202 and of this direction concerning construction of that section and section 530D of title 28.

This reluctance to let Congress and the public know how the Administration is, or is not, implementing federal law, is regrettable. As we have written elsewhere, transparency of the Executive’s legal judgments "helps to ensure executive branch adherence to the rule of law and guard against excessive claims of executive authority[, and] also promotes confidence in the lawfulness of governmental action."

The final, and most important, problem with the practice in this Administration, as we emphasized above, is not the signing statements themselves, nor the simple fact that the President might be engaged in nonenforcement, but instead the substance of many of the Administration's constitutional objections: e.g., the extremely broad theories of the Commander-in-Chief Clause and the "unitary executive" that underlie many of the signing statements and other distorted statutory constructions. If those constitutional objections were well-taken, and were publicly disclosed and debated, the signing statements themselves would present far fewer problems.  But many of us believe that the Administration is wrong on the merits; and it is that substantive concern, along with the concerns about the lack of transparency and about the use of nonenforcement as a tactic of first resort, that should be at the heart of this debate.
___

I thought the Georgetown piece, which also examined and provided a critical examination of the American Bar Association's report on signing statements [PDF], effectively illuminated the problems that we are now facing if this new approach toward signing statements is not curtailed for this and all future Administrations.

_______________________

Footnotes
_______________________

  1. US Constitution, Article II, section 3:

    ________

    Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
    ________

    Relevant phrasing in bold.

Originally posted to GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:05 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for the hard work of copy and pasting... (17+ / 0-)

    ...or, send email to the Georgetown Law Faculty Blog and thank them for the illuminating work on the issue.

    (Actually, just to be on the safe side, please email them and thank them for their work -- and ask them very nicely not to pursue any potential abrogation or infringement of "fair use" by me...I think I exceeded it a little, but I strongly recommend that everyone read their full piece. <-- See? Free advertising.)</p>

    ;)

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:07:53 PM PDT

  •  I Have Also Been Digging ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, GreyHawk, Ellicatt, jlms qkw

    around looking at the Executive Orders by other Presidents Bush has penned out also . Rescinding an executive order is just like changing the law depending on what it is . Few people are aware of this action by a President .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.archives.gov/...
    George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables

    •  Interesting...! Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, jlms qkw

      Very interesting -- and somewhat discouraging -- reads.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:16:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of Particular Interest . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, GreyHawk

        2001 :  Ex Order # 13206 April 9 , 2001 signed rescinding Ex Order # 12923 issued by W.J. Clinton on June 30 , 1994 .

        •  I don't get the significance of that. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure what the previous EO did, nor how the revocation alters things.

          :/

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:27:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  After I Put On ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GreyHawk

            tin foil hat I see the possibility of a lax in National Security , by mistake or by direction ? Pre - 9/11 ?
            Anyway  : If you click on the link to the year it gives EOs and other EOs that were trumped , but the chain can be frustrating because there were so many revisions or amended EOs . So you have to follow them back . Waste of tome ? I don't know . I just wanted to see how many EOs of Clintons that Bush dumped , and why . They say a lot about how he has governed and intentions of the Conservative agenda . Thanks for your time .

            •  Thank you for yours. (0+ / 0-)

              And yes - I think it's well worth looking at; the conservatives and neoconservatives had an explicit agenda that explicitly included paving the way for their "usual activities" (cue "the usual suspects"). Unfortunately, nobody in a position to call them on it has done so, or at least not effectively.

              The end result is almost the same as surrendering to an abusive occupying power.

              :/

              Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
              Tempest even in reason's seat.

              by GreyHawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I love your IANAL disclaimer! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk, jlms qkw

    Thank for this info...

    Our country can survive war, disease, and poverty... what it cannot do without is justice.

    by mommyof3 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM PDT

  •  This is a topic that needs more attention... (4+ / 0-)

    it is way wayyyyyyyyy too fucking unconstitutional.

    Get that flashlight outta my face!

    by KevinBarry16 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM PDT

    •  ...just about anything Bush and his folks have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      done while in office has served to "redefine" the whole notion of "Constitutionality" and "legality" -- along with tossing integrity, accountability and "protect and defend" right out the window.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:49:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  IANAL, but in my view this abuse (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, GreyHawk, jlms qkw, ArtfromMI

    of signing statements constitutes grounds for impeachment, all by itself.

    Too bad Congress has been "off duty" in regards to their sworn oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies.  That too may be properly considered an impeachable offense.

    The Patriot act hasn't caught Osama Bin Laden. But it did catch Elliot Spitzer

    by ovals49 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:32:47 PM PDT

    •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      Just another item in the long list of impeachable, criminal offenses for the George W. Bush Presidency, and another item to hang around the neck of Congress for the failure to put an end to it.

      Granted, the Dems have a slim majority and the Repubs have gleefully proclaimed that they'd fight any challenges in a "cataclysmic fight to the death" -- but the Dems sure could have tried a lot harder, and (IMO) brought the Republicans to heel simply by exposing enough of their complicity and criminality.

      Then again, perhaps we have to wait until 2009, until the Republican minority is slimmed down even more...and hopefully some more forceful "fighting Dems" -- and any other non-Republican party -- can get in to foster and foment real change and a full accountability among their predecessors.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:53:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But you are more optimistic than I (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreyHawk

        I do not believe that we can simply trust that more Democrats, "fighting" or otherwise, will cure the cancer of greed and corruption which now permeates our political process.  Democrats, with only a handful of exceptions, are complicit.

        Look at Kucinich, one of the more notable exceptions, who clearly understands that our experiment in democracy is on the brink of failure and who has had the courage to speak out and to try to actually DO something about it.  No, not only is he marginalized by the press, ridiculed about his UFO agnosticism with rolling eye balls by vacant talking heads on the tee-vee looking for a gag line, but even his own party allows him to be challenged in the congressional district where he is otherwise certain to be reelected.  Both parties would prefer not to have to deal with the likes of Dennis.

        No, simply having more Democrats is not enough.  The Constitution is quickly becoming just another piece of paper.   History tells us that it was once the embodiment of a commitment to democratic principles worth defending to the death. Unfortunately,  most of our elected representatives don't seem to see it that way any more, and the ones that do get very little respect for their efforts to protect it.

        I fear that the only hope for reclaiming the principles of the founders, if it is even possible, will need to come from the bottom up, from the people.  I suppose that it is possible that leadership could inspire a groundswell of support among the people to that end, but it would be certain that those who currently enjoy the privilege of their positions would offer extreme resistance to that re-revolution.  

        It's likely to get very ugly before it get better, if it ever does.

        The Patriot act hasn't caught Osama Bin Laden. But it did catch Elliot Spitzer

        by ovals49 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:00:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe that the first thing we must do to (0+ / 0-)

          provide The People with an opportunity to gather is to break the Republican hold on our government -- they have too many who are heavily vested in preserving and protecting the collective a$$ of their party over any accountability or action that could help the nation.

          It's for that reason, and that reason only, that I think we must elect more and "better" Democrats this cycle; not only Democrats, but whoever from whatever party will help us drive forward toward more meaning, in-depth investigation, revelations and actions against the crime spree that has served the GOP's interests alone for the past 8 years.

          I don't care about 2010 or 2012 -- those elections will hopefully take care of themselves once the GOP has been gutted.

          I simply see that the first order of business must be to completely divest the nation of the GOP's fat, greasy fingers before we can reliably do anything else.

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  recent reports show that gov. employees (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, GreyHawk

    are treating Bushs Signing Statements as Law and are refusing to carry out certain sections of new laws passed by Congress. What bothers me more than the signing statements ar the Secret Executive Orders we know nothing about except that they do exist.

    Molly Ivins reply when asked about Obama, Her answer: "Yes, he should run. He's the only Democrat with any `Elvis' to him."

    by SmileySam on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:00:07 PM PDT

  •  Recommendations . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk

    To Be Sure it was the number and nature of the current President's signing statements which generated the formation of this task force and compelled our recommendations .  excerpt

    So in this case it was the actions by THIS President and not previous Presidents that prompted action by the panel .If ever before this a President used his pen to circumvent the Constitution i would like to have information on that .

    •  I think that depends on where you'd draw the line (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      and define "circumvent the Constitution" -- the Reagan Administration first attempted to justify the use of signing statements as "legal precedent" setting maneuvers; that definition was used by subsequent Presidents, including Clinton, in spite of its controversial nature.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He shall take care that the laws (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, GreyHawk

    be faithfully executed.

    Yeah, the same way he executed Karla Faye Tucker when he was governor of Texas.

    •  ...giggling all the way? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      That's 'bout right -- really a sad commentary on our so-called leader.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site