Posted by Eric Posner: President Obama’s first signing statement. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_08-2009_03_14.shtml#1236897533
[1]Here. A few days ago, President Obama [2]explained that he would issue such statements more responsibly and sparingly than Bush did. Bush used the same constitutional theories that Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan did; what was distinctive about President Bush�s practice was that he would frequently spew forth grapeshot claims that knocked out unidentified provisions of a bill (�everything that is inconsistent with my commander in chief power�), whereas Clinton tended to issue more targeted statements that identified a particular provision of concern, although he fired grapeshot as well. We see the same old Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush theories in Obama�s first statement (including our old pal, the commander in chief power), and we even see the grapeshot approach in the first (�Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H,�), fourth (�Numerous provisions of the legislation�), and fifth bullet points. Bush challenged many more statutory provisions than Clinton did (but both of them challenged an infinitesimal fraction of the entire legislative output of Congress during their administrations), but because he cited the same clauses of the Constitution, it was hard to tell whether the difference between the two was that Bush had a more aggressive theory of presidential power or that he merely applied existing theories more consistently. The signing statement controversy was phony. People had legitimate complaints about the Bush administration�s theories of presidential power, but the media couldn�t understand the issues, and so preferred to talk about how many signing statements each president issued. I discus all this [3]here. Back in 2006 an ABA task force issued a [4]report that �opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.� Will it mount the ramparts yet again? Or are its members too busy trying to find jobs in the Obama administration? References 1. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/03/11/bosigningstatement0311.pdf 2. http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2009signingstm.mem.final.rel.pdf 3. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922400 4. http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/aba_final_signing_statements_recommendation-report_7-24-06.pdf
_______________________________________________ Volokh mailing list [email protected] http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
