Use of Presidential Signing Statements Continues, Criticism Doesn't

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Once again, the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/posts/1244245053.shtml) has an interesting piece tracking the controversial practice of signing statements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement) when the President signs a bill.

I personally did not find the practice either unconstitutional or all that big a deal; but the ABA in 2006 decried the practice as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers."

To date, President Obama has now made four such statements (compared to one for the Bush administration during the same period). While there was considerable criticism (http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/) of the Bush Administration for this practice, the same sources are now strangely silent.

[Playboypenguin]

Signing statements are like laws. Only abusive ones are bad. What exactly did Obama say in his signing statements? Did he go as far as to say these laws do not apply to me?

[publius42]

Did he go as far as to say these laws do not apply to me?

Yes, of course. That's what signing statements are for!

According to the wiki article in the topic post,

On March 11, 2009, President Obama issued his first signing statement, attached to the omnibus spending bill for the second half of FY2009. [20] The statement indicated that the President would ignore several provisions of the bill, including sections dealing with negotiations with foreign governments, restrictions on US involvement in UN peacekeeping missions, protections for government whistleblowers, and certain congressional claims of authority over spending.[21][22] [23]

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Also, I think it misses the point that many of the same organizations that could not condemn signing statments enough when someone else was in the White House are strangely silent now.

Note for example the ABA's language... it doesn't say that signing statements are only bad when abused. It says they are "contrary to the rule of law." The ABA even developed press kits and did news stories on this all through 2006-2007.

However, since 2008, absolutely nothing on this issue from the ABA.

[johnbt]

I'm shocked our new president is getting a free pass on this. Shocked I say.

;)

[hogdogs]

Isn't this a purely generic political thread, thus not in line with the rules of the new L&CR section? Nuttin' to do with our gun laws or civil rights...
Brent

[peetzakilla]

Also, I think it misses the point that many of the same organizations that could not condemn signing statments enough when someone else was in the White House are strangely silent now.

That's a little thing called "bias". It happens on both sides of the equation.

[Mike Irwin]

As Hotdogs said, this is pure politics, which we don't do here.

Closed.