Obama nulllifies Bush signing statements: Up to 1,200 laws affected

[Richard Tafoya]

Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19795.html

In another break with his predecessor’s expansive view of executive power, President Barack Obama is ordering federal agencies to disregard so-called signing statements where George W. Bush disagreed with bills he signed.

Bush used signing statements to express differences with about 1,200 items in legislation passed during his eight years in office. In many instances, he told federal agencies they should ignore the offending provisions.

However, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama had issued a memorandum essentially nullifying Bush’s signing statements by telling agencies not to rely on them without consulting with the Justice Department.

But as with other distinctions Obama has drawn with Bush, the new president is not making an entirely clean break. He is reserving his right to issue signing statements when he sees fit, though he is pledging to be more sparing in his use of the tactic.

“I think the previous administration issued hundreds and hundreds of signing statements that ... specifically entailed, through those signing statements, people disregarding portions of legislation or the intent of Congress,” Gibbs said.

[pinky]

*inhales deeply*


I just LOVE fresh air!!!!!

[Richard Tafoya]

And today, Obama issued his own first signing statement:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/obama-issues-his-first-signing-statement.php
After Obama signed the $410 spending bill that keeps the government funded until October, the White House released a statement outlining its take on the constitutionality of several of the bill's provisions.

Perhaps the most notable portion of the statement gives Obama room to reallocate money as he sees fit without abiding by the spending bill's requirement to first get approval from Congress:

Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory.

Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.

Late Update: A reader writes in to observe that the administration's signing statement has constitutional precedent to back it up. I'm in no way suggesting that it doesn't -- merely pointing out that while Obama attempts to undo Bush's past statements, he's clearly reserving the right to defend executive power when he sees fit.

[pinky]

As a lawyer, I would say that Obama has a clearer view of what is constitutional than did a big oil/baseball man.