Signing Statements

Signing Statements - why the sudden angst?

Senate panel denounces Bush for exploiting "signing statements" By Jonathan Weisman The Washington Post WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators and scholars denounced President Bush Tuesday for using scores of so-called "signing statements" to reserve the right to ignore or reinterpret provisions of legislation that he has signed into law. I've read untold numbers of political biographies, texts, histories and other compendia; thousands upon thousands of political newspaper  and magazine articles; spent  tens of hundred hours watching C-Span and ilk -  but, before a few days ago I had never heard the words ''signing statement.''  Makes me feel young again. ''Senate panel .. bipartisan group of senators ... ." Bwahaaaa.  Hows that for a lede? I am absolutely confident that each of you know immediately who "Mr Bi-Partisan Republican" is, and have ''Arlo Sphincter'' curse spit splattered across your monitor.  Am I right?   I mean, how many times has Arlo played the role of  ''bi-partisan Republican 'concerned about his party'?''  Who else could it be?  Let's see if we're right! ''Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing marked the latest effort by committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and panel Democrats to try to reclaim authority they say the president has usurped as he has expanded the power of the executive branch.'' Old bi-partisan Arlo, hyuck-hyuck!  Sphincter is so hated by mainline Republicans, that fellow Pa Senator Rick Santorum will lose his seat this fall for his role in getting Arlo reelected over Pat Toomey.  Anyway, let's hit the books together on this signing statement thing.  In a nutshell, it has three functions.  When signing a bill, the President can - Explain to the public, and particularly to constituencies interested in the bill, what the President believes to be the likely effects of its adoption. Direct subordinate officers within the Executive Branch on how to interpret or administer the enactment. Inform Congress and the public that the Executive believes that a particular provision would be unconstitutional in certain of its applications, or that it is unconstitutional on its face, and that the provision will not be given effect by the Executive Branch to the extent that such enforcement would create an unconstitutional condition It is the latter use by Bush that has these popinjays upset.  Here's how it works.  Let's suppose Congress expressed its will to vacate Iraq, and attached an amendment to an education bill that withdrew all funding from the war effort.  The signing might sound like this. President Bush: ''In signing the 2007 Children's Promise For a Future Act, a particularly onerous, and I believe unconstitutional vessel of swill, I hereby instruct my cabinet officers to ignore it entirely.'' I'll  wind things up here so you can get to the beer hall before dinner, but lets reflect on something for a second.  You will learn in tonight's reading that examples of signing statements can be found as early as the Jackson and Tyler Administrations, and later Presidents, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, also engaged in the practice.  A practice so ignored that nobody ever heard of it. So why the sudden angst? Why now? Here's my guess.  With the Supreme Court just a heart attack away from being firmly  in the hands of sober judges,  liberals are afraid that Bush has once again snookered them.  He has yet to veto a bill, but he has uttered negatively more than 750 times while signing some 110 bills into law.  Each of those statements is a hand grenade waiting for a like-minded court to pull the pin.  This is just conjecture, so don't take it to the bank until someone smart says the same thing. Okay for tonight's reading, I give you 'THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS'' MEMORANDUM FOR BERNARD N. NUSSBAUM, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT From Walter Dellinger Assistant Attorney General How's that for bi-partisan?