LA Times Falsely Claims Clinton Used "Way More" Signing Statements Than Bush

Washington Monthly:

NOT EVEN CLOSE.... The LA Times' Andrew Malcolm played a little fast and loose yesterday, commenting on President Obama's directive on Bush's signing statements. (thanks to reader J.R. for the heads-up)

Read the whole story: Washington Monthly

Comments

[RG5626]

01:31 PM on 03/11/2009

The numbers matter less than how the tool was used. Writting a signing statement with guideance on how to implement a law while non binding is normal and fine. Writting a signing statement directing your administration to ignore all or part of a law, while also non binding, is confusing and wrong.

It's like the attorney firings by Rove. It's expected and normal to fire all of the US attorneys hired by the previous administration and put your own people in place. And there is nothing wrong with firing a US attorney that you hired. What was wrong with what Rove did was to fire US atorney's because they would not use the office for political gain for your party.

[joebaggadonuts]

08:11 PM on 03/10/2009

Whew. Good thing Obama's note to regard ALL signing statements with suspicion covers the whole nasty lot of 'em. Holder should probably issue a memorandum stating that all of them which counter the language of the statute are inherently unconstitutional. That would end this mess.

[EyeDoc007]

01:39 PM on 03/10/2009

I guess that depends on what the definition of signing statement is.

[luvangelHussein330]

11:56 AM on 03/10/2009

Should have knwon anytime they use " way more" instead of actual numbers, figures, evidence...you hve to give it the side eye

[eilish]

11:28 AM on 03/10/2009

People need to know what a signing statement is. It is written by the POTUS when signing a bill into law and can be either constitutional, political or rhetorical. Bill Clinton used 381 statements of which 70 (14%) contained legal challenges. As of 01/30/2008, GWB had signed 157 statements (content here) challenging 1,100 provisions of federal law.

In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers". (info from Wiki)

So who perverted the Constitution to cripple it?

[EyeDoc007]

11:33 AM on 03/10/2009

Using the website posted below, I counted 370 for Clinton vs. 193 for Dubya.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

[essbird]

11:35 AM on 03/10/2009

The ABA task force findings document: http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf

[TimmySlagle]

11:08 AM on 03/10/2009

From the wWashington Monthly:

"t's a highly misleading claim, based on a count of the individual documents, instead of the number of provisions to which the signing statements have been applied."

so it would appear Clinton DID use more signing statements.

I think the headline here is "highly misleading."

[EyeDoc007]

11:17 AM on 03/10/2009

It's a matter a semantics. Clinton issued more signing statements but Bush challenged more provisions within his smaller number of statements.

[TimmySlagle]

11:39 AM on 03/10/2009

Doesn't matter. Clinton still used way more signing statements. That is the truth.

It's irrelevant anyway. The Signing Statement controversy, was an opposition tactic, to paint the previous President as a dictator (the first dictator that ever handed over power with a handshake rather than bullets BTW) , issuing a Signing Statement is completely lawful.

It is more a measure of an attempted congressional power grab, than a President out of control.

[jsgaetano]

11:02 AM on 03/10/2009

LA Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, isn't it?

Hardly surprising they are lying.

[eden4barack08]

08:16 PM on 03/10/2009

Sam Zell, but same right wing corporate hack anyway.

[Lillopa]

10:53 AM on 03/10/2009

watch Keith Olbermann on what caused this economy crises--"Blame beyond Washington" excellent excellent--tell everone whow whow--and Rachel Maddow on "Free Choice Act"--whow ! republicans really do not want our wages to be fair or equal--work for wages like foreign C China? rich think they are the only ones who should make money have a good life--what we are your slaves?

[Beninn]

02:40 AM on 03/11/2009

Keith Olbermann on Who Broke The US -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af7kEs4sx0I&feature=channel_page

[DoTheMath]

10:48 AM on 03/10/2009

I noticed that false statement in my local newspaper this morning. I don't subscribe to the LA Times, but, like most papers these days, The Sacramento Bee prints articles from other publications as well as some written by its own reporters. I wonder how many newspapers nation-wide have spread this lie.

[JimR]

10:40 AM on 03/10/2009

So how many did Clinton sign, Washington Monthly?

I've seen otherl sources that stated Clinton had more.

[TheIndependenceParty]

10:52 AM on 03/10/2009

Cite them here please, ...

[Lemeritus]

11:00 AM on 03/10/2009

TIP, by "other sources" I think JimR means all those that Palin reads: "all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years." T'would be an onerous task to expect Jim to list them all.

Btw, RIP LAT.

[EyeDoc007]

11:15 AM on 03/10/2009

See my link below.

[eilish]

11:29 AM on 03/10/2009

Check out my post, JimR.

[JScott]

10:39 AM on 03/10/2009

Yup this is Sam Zell's LA Times now, uses the Rupert Murdoch technique in journalism.......
Otis would be turning in his grave.

[Grunty1]

10:32 AM on 03/10/2009

It isn't also merely quantity. Most presidents have used signing statements to add their own OPINION on the law. Under Dubya, it was used to REWRITE the law.

[Lemeritus]

11:01 AM on 03/10/2009

Excellent point and well taken.

[TimmySlagle]

11:28 AM on 03/10/2009

Kind of like what the Supreme Court did to Abortion laws in Roe v. Wade? Why is only the Supreme Court allowed to rewrite Law

You guys look at the government as a hierarchy, where Congress trumps President, and Court trumps Congress.

The truth is, all three branches were supposed to have equal powers. It is not just the Court, who is authorized to weigh the Constitutionality of a law.

[EyeDoc007]

10:19 AM on 03/10/2009

The thing is the neither this article, nor the original one that's being criticized, tell how many signing statements Clinton made. One article says Bill had more, the other says W. had more. Pretty lazy.

However The American Presidency Project, which has a huge collection of material on Presidents,comes to the same conclusion that Clinton had more.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q4

[lostinNJ1]

11:10 AM on 03/10/2009

The article used the total # of provisions that his signing statements applied to:

Did Clinton use signing statements "way more than George W. Bush"? It's a highly misleading claim, based on a count of the individual documents, instead of the number of provisions to which the signing statements have been applied. In reality, Bush "broke all records" while abusing this presidential tool, "using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined."

Anyway, in your link, I couldn't find how many Clinton signed- it just said he signed way more than Bush.
Per your link

:Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.

[EyeDoc007]

11:21 AM on 03/10/2009

The site lists every signing statement. I'll count and post the numbers.

[kathy001]

11:23 AM on 03/10/2009

Agreed, it would be nice to have all the numbers spelled out in articles that challenge these conclusions. And it's not the # of actual signing statements they are claiming against Bush but the number of sections of the bills that they effected and the manner in which they effected those bills. Bush's signing statements were largely focused on taking power away from Congress and giving it to himself.

".....1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined..."

The rhetoric from both sides is becoming more irritating every day.