Posted by Orin Kerr:
Constitutional Obligations and Signing Statements:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_05-2009_04_11.shtml#1239128661
In the wake of the controversy over Eric Holder's apparent decision to
support the DC voting rights bill despite its likely constitutional
problems, a lot of conservatives are advocating a position of strict
constitutional duty: If the executive branch believes that part of a
bill is unconstitutional, the executive must vote against the
legislation. To do otherwise is to subvert the constitution and
violate the constitutional oath.
If you identify as a conservative and you feel that way, I have a
question: Where were you during the Bush Administration? President
Bush [1]repeatedly signed legislation accompanied by signing
statements indicating that the President believed that many parts of
the laws were unconstitutional. As I understand it, the Bush
Administration's approach was to sign the legislation despite the
constitutional defects, with the stated intention to not follow the
parts believed to be unconstitutional. To conservatives who think
Holder's apparent support for the DC voting rights law subverts the
constitution, I'm curious, what did you think of Bush's signing
statements?
References
1.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
