Obama’s First Signing Statement
By LisaB on March 12, 2009 at 12:01 PM in Current Affairs
President Barack W. Obama issued his first signing statement according to the NYT.
President Obama on Wednesday issued his first signing statement, reserving a right to bypass dozens of provisions in a $410 billion government spending bill even as he signed it into law.
In the statement — directions to executive-branch officials about how to carry out the legislation — Mr. Obama instructed them to view most of the disputed provisions as merely advisory and nonbinding, saying they were unconstitutional intrusions on his own powers.
Mr. Obama’s instructions followed by two days his order to government officials that they not rely on any of President George W. Bush’s provision-bypassing signing statements without first consulting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. In that order, Mr. Obama said he would continue the practice of issuing signing statements, though “with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.”
Well, the more things CHANGE the more they stay the SAME, eh? Ok, that was awful, but I couldn’t resist.
But, snark aside, there is something to watch. Obama apparently wants to reserve for himself the right to assign U.S. troops to UN command.
One of the budget bill’s provisions that Mr. Obama said he could circumvent concerns United Nations peacekeeping missions. It says money may not be spent on any such mission if it entails putting United States troops under a foreign commander, unless Mr. Obama’s military advisers so recommend.
“This provision,” Mr. Obama wrote, “raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as commander in chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority.”
And Obama didn’t like the protections granted to federal employees who give information to Congress.
“I do not interpret this provision,” he wrote, “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.”
Ahhhh. The privilege argument! Whew! I was beginning to think as a new kind of president Obama wouldn’t invoke the “I’m not gonna tell you ’cause I don’t gotta” gambit.
Obama is keenly aware of his powers and not, surprise, willing to give any back. He actually used the phrase “impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement” to describe what Congress was trying to do.
Wow. Pot, meet kettle.
The WSJ covered this today as well.
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.
“We’re having a repeat of what Democrats bitterly complained about under President Bush,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), who drafted legislation to nullify Mr. Bush’s signing statements.
Well, time to start the “signing statement” count. Change you can believe in!

















