President Obama’s frequent use of signing statements so early in his term is drawing bipartisan criticism — and it should.
The New York Times’ Charlie Savage reported Sunday that the president has, since taking office, claimed authority to skirt “dozens of provisions” of bills under the theory they are constitutionally unsound.
During the campaign, Obama criticized President George W. Bush’s abuse of signing statements. As a candidate, Obama pledged he would use restraint in issuing them. However, it appears Obama has stretched his own interpretation of the proper use of the controversial tool.
Signing statements, which signal the chief executive’s intent to disregard a portion of a legislative measure, have the potential to violate constitutionally defined separation of powers. Obama must be more judicious in how he uses signing statements. If he thinks the legislation before him is problematic, then he ought to veto it. Or he should signal his concerns to Congress before the bill gets to his desk.
Last month, several lawmakers — including senior Democrats and Republicans — rebuked Obama for issuing a signing statement on a legislative provision directing him to pressure the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to approve certain policies.
Obama wrote that such a mandate would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations” by directing the president to take certain positions in discussions with international organizations or foreign governments.
Obama’s view on signing statements is subtle, but has changed discernibly from the campaign trail to the Oval Office.
As a candidate, he said a signing statement was a legitimate way to protect a “president’s constitutional prerogatives” when used with restraint. Such a move should not, he said, undermine legislative intent.
In March, a presidential memo defined restraint more broadly, saying signing statements are justified “when based on well-founded constitutional objections.”
Though it’s clear this president hasn’t been abusing signing statements the way his predecessor did, he still is using them in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush took office.
Bush, however, set the bar for questionable use of signing statements. Savage, who was then a reporter for the Boston Globe, reported in 2006 that Bush had claimed authority to disregard more than 750 laws approved by Congress. Many were related to national security, but others involved affirmative-action, whistle- blower protections, and prohibitions against political influence in federally supported research.
In many instances it seemed Bush was using signing statements to disagree with legislators and express an expansive view of executive power.
Obama vowed to break with that legacy, which was the right path forward. Now, he needs to keep that promise.
