RSS
Home
Obama's first signing statement: Claiming too much power?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
That didn't take long.
Two days after releasing a heavily-cushioned memo concerning his position on presidential signing statements, President Obama today went to town with a doozie of a signing statement accompanying his ratification of the omnibus spending bill.
In the original memo, the president went to extraordinary rhetorical lengths to reassure everyone that signing statements would be rare and used only in the most dire constitutional circumstances (ignoring, it seemed to me, the reason we have a judicial branch). But with the signing of the spending bill today, Obama wasted no time in offering a slew of provisos and exceptions.
I agree with many of the positions he takes on various parts of the bill, but I am quite uncomfortable of his seemingly-enthusiastic use of this non-existent power. For example, I agree that he should not have arbitrary restrictions placed on his ability to assist U.N. missions for no other reason than those missions being headed by non-U.S. commanders (Section 7050, Division H), particularly when such a restriction stems from the xenophobia and knee-jerk anti-internationalism of some conservatives. But if that provision of the bill is unconstitutional, then let the courts strike it down. So should be the case with all questions regarding the president's powers, which are by definition questions of constitutionality.
And even weirder, Obama sounds like he's using the signing statement in a kind of Bush-like way:
Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.
Am I reading this correctly? If I were to read this with my paranoia meter turned up, I would think that the president is saying that he maintains the authority to prevent whistleblowers from, well, blowing whistles. I could paraphrase this part of the statement as saying, "Even though the law says Congress can refrain from paying a federal employee who tries to shut somebody up, I'm pretty sure I can still shut up whoever I want as long as I think I have a good reason" -- but I'm not paranoid, of course. But even former Bushies are touting Obama's use of signing statements as validation for their boss's abuses.
But put that aside for the moment. I understand the argument for a wise utilization of some well-moderated, selective interpretation of the minutiae in some of the more overstuffed bills that might cross a president's desk. Bills are products of several hundred extremely flawed human beings, and it has a ring of common sense to assume that a president will need to unofficially polish off some parts here and there to make them all jibe with reality and law. A veto is such an enormous move with sometimes excruciating consequences, that finding ways to avoid using one on an otherwise-needed bill has some theoretical merit.
But I'm just not sure. At times like these I sometimes pine for some outside-the-Beltway wisdom and wonder how, as they say, this is "playing in Peoria."
Oh, wait! We don't have to wonder! Here's an editorial from the Peoria Journal Star:
Obama may have been a constitutional law professor in Chicago, but neither he nor any other president should be the sole arbiter of what's constitutional. Deciding which parts of a law to obey and which parts to chuck out the window runs roughshod over the other two branches of government.
Not encouraging, Mr. President, is it? Once all the hubbub about earmarks dies down, I'll be curious to see how the rest of the media -- particularly the liberal blogosphere -- feels about this whole issue. I think there is a lot of faith in Obama's good intentions and judiciousness in this case, which I think is quite well-founded -- I really am a big fan of this guy, and he proves again and again his wisdom and heart. But I don't want to have to worry about any president's intentions in regards to what he happens to feel his powers are. That's why we have a Constitution, isn't it?
Special Report: Obama's First 100 DaysExclusive examiner.com coverage of the Obama administration's promise to bring about change.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
