President Obama issued his first signing statement yesterday as he approved this year's omnibus appropriations legislation. Signing statements are issued by presidents signing legislation that identify provisions they interpret as unconstitutional and thus will not enforce, but don't feel are troublesome enough to veto an entire bill. President Bush, however, abused this privilege, using signing statements to make policy changes. Charlie Savage won a Pulitzer prize for his reporting on this story, and now brings his sights to bear on the new administration's practice.
Jon Henke calls foul, suggesting that Obama has contradicted campaign statements like, "We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." But after reading the administration's policy on signing statements, the first signing statement itself [PDF] and Savage's reporting, I do think that the new administration has been careful to strictly limit their exceptions to basic constitutional issues and not use the privilege to make policy. Compare Bush's signing statements, many of which revolved around ignoring congressional oversight in matters of war and torture, to Obama's perhaps most controversial exception, in which he accepts as merely advisory congressional ideas on re-allocating appropriated funds. It's clear, I think, that signing statements are both useful and capable of being abused, so each one should be scrutinized carefully by the press and the public.
Henke also goes on to criticize legislative bundling, the practice that puts the president in the position of not wanting to veto an entire bill for the sake of one unconstitutional provision. I think he vastly understates the time it would take for both the entire Congress and the president to approve each item in hugely complex federal legislation, or perhaps doesn't understand how much scrutiny these bills already undergo in committee. Why would we tolerate the current status quo, which is certainly not ideal? Well, this is the central government of a hugely rich and powerful country, and its policy-making does and should reflect the complexities of the United States. As a conservative, Henke doesn't feel that central government should be so complex -- and perhaps the idea of a paralyzed Congress appeals to him -- but that's a first principles debate for another day. The other issue is that in legislation like appropriations bills, which are tied into the overall budget process, it makes sense to consider these things as a whole after Congress has put them together.
-- Tim Fernholz
