Via the WSJ: Obama Outlines Plan to Curb Earmarks
At the same time, after Democrats criticized former President George W. Bush’s signing statements, Mr. Obama issued one of his own, declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, including one aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.Presidents have employed signing statements to reject provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation. Democrats and some Republicans have complained that Mr. Bush abused such statements by declaring that he would ignore congressional intent on more than 1,200 sections of bills, easily a record. Mr. Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor’s signing statements and said he would rein in the practice.
It is more accurate to state that president have employed signing statement to attempt to reject provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation, as there is not real, legal rejection of anything. It certainly isn’t any kind of line-item veto, as the paragraph above practically suggests.
Still, the practice is problematic in my view, not to mention of dubious constitutionality. It is hardly a surprise that a new president, even one that criticized the old one, would use already established practices. So while unsurprising, it is disappointing, as I was hopeful that whomever won the election would curtail the process, given the stated views of the candidates on the subject.
Beyond any of that: if a president believe a portion of a bill to be unconstitutional, then that president should veto the bill. That’s why the veto power is there in the first place.
For those unfamiliar with the practice, here are some previous posts on the subject:
- Bush and Signing Statements
- More on Signing Statements
- Yet More on Signing Statements
- From Matthew Shugart: Signing statements, continued
- From Matthew Shugart: Signing statements, again
March 12th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Didn’t Obama recently issue a memo saying that he would only issue this kind of executive order to “construe a statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional problem only if that construction is a legitimate one”? Why, yes, yes he did ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-on-Presidential-Signing-Statements/ ).
March 12th, 2009 at 11:03 am
If–and I do not know whether this conditional is operative–the provisions of the bill in question actually are not executed, then it is indeed an item veto. It would be an absolute item veto, because there is no opportunity for congress to insist on its original bill, including the provision that the president removed.
You are right, it is an attempt that may not work, given the lack of constitutional status. The answer may depend on court rulings or how much noise congress makes in oversight hearings or future appropriations to insist that executive agencies ignore presidential orders.
(And thanks to the grafts–er, links–to my old, but I hope still thriving, plantings!)