iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama: Don't Rely on Bush's Signing Statements

First Posted: 04/09/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:05 PM ET

Bush Gross

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's signing statements which often told officials how to implement laws, the Associated Press reports.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama has sent memos to federal agencies directing them to review former President George W. Bush's signing statements.

When signing legislation, Bush often would use such statements to direct officials to ignore parts of the law he thought were incorrect or restricted the administration's constitutional powers.

Gibbs said presidents have used such statements to note potential problems and Obama planned to continue that practice. But Gibbs said Obama would not use those signing statements to completely disregard Congress' intent.

The memo was first obtained by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama's directions marked the latest step in his administration's effort to deal with a series of legal and policy disputes it inherited from the Bush administration. It came the same day that Mr. Obama lifted restrictions Mr. Bush had placed on federal financing for research that uses embryonic stem cells.


Mr. Bush's use of signing statements -- official legal documents issued by a president the day he signs bills into law, instructing executive officials how to implement the statutes -- led to fierce controversy.

Mr. Bush frequently used signing statements to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, claiming that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a torture ban and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counter-terrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act.

Read the full memo:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release March 9, 2009 March 9, 2009


MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT:

Presidential Signing Statements

For nearly two centuries, Presidents have issued statements
addressing constitutional or other legal questions upon signing
bills into law (signing statements). Particularly since omnibus
bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been
used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of
discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the
entire bill.

In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion
and criticism of the use of signing statements to raise
constitutional objections to statutory provisions. There is
no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be
abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to
suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements
on the basis of policy disagreements. At the same time, such
signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at
least when based on well-founded constitutional objections. In
appropriately limited circumstances, they represent an exercise
of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy
dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress.
With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the
Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address
constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as
a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In
issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following
principles:

1. The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps,
whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its
constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such
communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive
branch and the Congress to work together to address these
concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the
number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled
bill that may require a signing statement.

2. Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with
a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to
avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill
is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility
to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is
unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint,
based only on interpretations of the Constitution that
are well-founded.
more

3. To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure
that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns
about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to
make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional
objection.

4. I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a
statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional
problem only if that construction is a legitimate one.
To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are
followed only when consistent with these principles, executive
branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice
of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements
issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for
disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision
of a statute.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees,
or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA
# # #

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's signing statements which often told officials how to implement laws, the Associated Press reports. White House pres...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's signing statements which often told officials how to implement laws, the Associated Press reports. White House pres...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 705
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
12:06 PM on 03/10/2009
I would hate to imagine what Bush signed or changed. The POTUS has inherited a reservoir full of made-up as you go laws and lies. Since Bush had little understanding of what's a constitution and most definitely what it means, he made up his own while pretending to be president. Maybe if we look carefully, since he was signing almost everything, he may have assigned his own butt to Guantanamo.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnHKennedy
10:08 AM on 03/10/2009
I am very glad to see Obama doing this. Regardless, it is a baby step compared to what must be done to confront the terrible reality ofnthe crimes of the Bush Administration.

Our unnecessary wars will go on and on if we continue to refuse to examine the violations of Federal Law, Treaties, and the Geneva Convention on Torture by the Bush/Cheney Administration.

When are our Attorney General, our Congress, and the Obama Administration going to do something about investigating and prosecuting the Bushies that broke so many Federal Laws?

We must pressure our Attorney General holder, the Congress and the Obama Administration to appoint a Special Prosecutor to indict these criminals.

All of our country's problems can be traced to their blatant abuse of power.

WE CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY MOVE FORWARD Until We Examine the many Crimes
of the Bush Administration.

Sign the National Petition to Prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the appointees that violated so many Federal Laws, including the one against Torture.

http://AngryVoters.org

.
10:01 AM on 03/10/2009
I feel so sorry for Obama...he has inherited an absolute horror show. And the nasty GOP is relentless...they care not for this country, continuing the tradition of W, and making it hell for Obama.
If, and I know this is fantasy, the GOP would unite with Obama, perhaps he could start fixing some of the mess he inherited.
It is so irritating to see the pundits ask if it is Bush or Obama's recession: duh...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Liberalforsure
Love this country? Vote out all republicans!
07:06 AM on 03/10/2009
Aw come on, give bush a break, it's not that he overlooked the constitution, he just didn't know that we had one.
08:22 AM on 03/10/2009
I think Bush was told about the constitution while in a cabinet meeting, as he made the following statement : "F*** the constitution, it ain't nothing but a GD piece of paper."
12:38 PM on 03/10/2009
LOL...priceless!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
returnofthejedi
Trolls have no chance!
07:05 AM on 03/10/2009
Plain and simple, Bush and the Religious Right used the signing statements as a way to directly impair the ability of the congress to be a co equal branch. The patriot act and the nsa wiretapping fiasco were nothing but tools to go after political enemies, and strip away constitutional rights of groups of Americans that the right wing thinks do not deserve equal protection under the law. Under Republicans we got deregulated business, but lets not overlook the danger of deregulated law enforcement.
05:58 AM on 03/10/2009
From late 2001 until Jan. 19, 2009, this country was effectively, a dictatorship.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
returnofthejedi
Trolls have no chance!
06:57 AM on 03/10/2009
True satatement. Some of the co- conspirators are still around too. A lot of them have resigned, or will not seek re- election. They should all be investigated and brought to justice for trying to undermind the United States Government.
04:42 AM on 03/10/2009
MN-Sen: Coleman's hopes take another hit as registration search only yields 88 or 89 additional ballots:

http://voteforamerica.net/editorials/Comments.aspx?ArticleId=249&ArticleName=Secrecy+Envelope+Search+Complete
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zull2
I'm not as here as you think I am?
03:05 AM on 03/10/2009
Especially since most of the grammar is wrong, 50% of the words are misspelled, and anything longer than one sentence is generally followed by a conflicting sentence.

Oh yeah, and because they're a backdoor line item veto, which was ruled to be Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
02:50 AM on 03/10/2009
The most shocking thing I have learned here is George Bush knows how to write. Wow.
01:43 AM on 03/10/2009
Wow. Wait, no, you mean rule of law? You mean no one is above the law? The President isn't a King? These are interesting times.
01:29 AM on 03/10/2009
This President is fixing so much that was screwed up by the Bush administration in spite of the crazys. If those bone headed Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats would work with this President, so much could become righted in this country and we could edge back away from that clif that Buffet talked about today. The No Gang on Capitol Hill seems to be exercising dangerous policy to oppose him at every turn. It's dangerous to American citizens. The boat is sinking and they're throwing us over the side!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
returnofthejedi
Trolls have no chance!
07:17 AM on 03/10/2009
They oppose him because they don't want to be exposed as being enemies of the same government they are supposed to represent. Totalitarians have no love for a Real Democratic Republic. People having the same opportunities that they have may actually be a positive force while wielding great power. They know that world history indicates that people naturally oppose tyrannical rule unless they are powerless to do so. That is why the Right Wing over the years have created all these boogie men in the minds of the American People to keep them afraid so they come running to the Lawless for protection. Classic Mob tactics. The War on Terror and the War on Drugs are the two best examples I can think of right now, though I know many could come up with more.
12:12 PM on 03/11/2009
blue dog Democrats are our tra!tors.

They are the lowest we have, the ones who should know better - but betray us anyway.
01:20 AM on 03/10/2009
Progress a little bit at a time. Yes the practice wasn't new to W. The problem is the egregious nature and frequency of the signing statements. W. Used them more than the other 42 presidents combined. I am glad to see this review, its a small step but its kind of an abdication of power that was amassed. He could have said they all stand as his to build his own case.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:55 AM on 03/10/2009
Reuters, monday march 8, ' Exxon Aims for a Big Role in Iraq's Oil Sector. '

Read all about it.

Hundreds of thousands dead.

Mission Accomplished.
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
12:04 AM on 03/10/2009
Good start. After this, the Obama administration can reverse Bush's policy on warantless surveillance and stop sticking up for John Yoo.
Right?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
12:11 AM on 03/10/2009
Yoo is being sued in his role as a government employee. The Justice Department is REQUIRED to defend him in that capacity. They are not permitted the option of doing otherwise.
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
01:01 AM on 03/10/2009
Quite right, Bruce, but let me be clear about the distinction I'm making: I'm not talking about the Justice Department's obligation to shield Yoo from the Jose Padilla lawsuits. I'm talking about the Obama administration's pronounced hesitation in bringing this clown up on criminal charges. The demand exists; both the public and many within the administration want Bush and his associates to be held accountable for their crimes. Anything short of accountability amounts to tacit approval, particularly in light of Obama's troubling position on warrantless wiretaps.
For all the reproachful talk about how Obama is being judged prematurely and not being given a chance to show what he's really made of, it's becoming clear that he's much more willing to go along with the dangerous precedent set by the Bush administration than to make waves. This concerns me, and it concerns a great many other people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
garymc8
We got OBL- not gop
12:05 PM on 03/10/2009
Can gonzales be the appointed lawyer, he'd lose in a heartbeat.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
freethinkergirl
Help, there's an elephant in our bedrooms...
12:14 AM on 03/10/2009
Right!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dragonlady620
My karma will run over your dogma
11:42 PM on 03/09/2009
A president who plans to obey the law-what a novel idea!
Of course it will mean undoing all of the legislative tampering that has been going on for the last decade, including those laws dealing with the behavior of financial institutions. The list of those alone is almost endless-Bush & Co. have been gutting every scrap of financial restraint since Day One. Trying to keep the economy from collapsing while trying to restore some kind of integrity to the market seems to be a Herculean task. AND on top of dealing with the war(S!) and repairing the considerable damage to foreign policy done on all fronts by the Bush gang.
What do you suppose the scenario would look like if McCain/Palin were behind the wheel?(Hint: your worst nightmare?)
11:59 PM on 03/09/2009
It goes all the way back to deregulation under Reagan.