Obama signs papers promising not to sign so many papers

President Obama today signed a document countermanding some documents signed by his predecessor and saying he won't sign so many other documents like that called signing documents.

This is another one of those little-known nifty Washington gadgets that cause the Real World out here to stare and go, "Say what?"

A signing document is basically an addendum that a president signs after signing legislation saying, in effect, yes, I know I signed this legislation but I really don't like/disagree with/suspect are unconstitutional/or all of the above the following parts.

This is basically his instructions/permission to the vast D.C. bureaucracy to ignore the disputed parts, even though the people's elected representatives passed it and the nation's chief executive officially signed it allegedly into law -- albeit with a Washington wink.

No, really. Like signing and initialing those 142 pages for your mortgage but telling the bank officer you don't like the one on page 67 so won't pay on time and he says, "Okey-doke." Sure, that'll work well outside Fantasyland. Don't try too hard to understand it; it makes sense ITB (Inside the Beltway).

Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush. But No. 42 is a Democrat and his wife currently works for Obama. So No. 44 is on a big tear right now to distance himself instead from No. 43, the Republican, who's back in Texas and doesn't care but just hearing his name trashed makes Democrats feel good. (See, also more Bush distancing in The Ticket on today's stem cell changes here.)

Our blogging buddy Frank James has more on this special D.C. gimmick over here. The losing Republican candidate last fall, Sen. John McCain, promised never ever to use them, if elected, because he thinks they're dishonest. And if you don't like the legislation, you should veto it, not go around back and ignore it. Obviously, the naive McCain just fell off the turnip cart. That's why he's still a senator.

N.B., as they say in academe, Obama doesn't say he won't ever use signing documents. He just says he'll work with Congress about them. Which means he will, of course, sign some, but right now he wants today's news coverage to be on more change to sort-of believe in.

[Clarification (4:26pm): While Clinton did use signing documents more than George W. Bush, the numbers could be considered misleading. Each bill contains numerous provisions, and that's where the real numbers are; as today's Times story noted, "According to one count, Bush issued 161 signing statements in which he cast doubt on more than 1,000 provisions in legislation and essentially stated his intention to ignore those parts of the law."]

The full text of Obama's signed signing letter memo is published below.

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.

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.
/signed/ BARACK OBAMA

-- Andrew Malcolm

Speaking of signings, don't forget to sign up here for Twitter alerts on all new Ticket items.

Photo: Larry Downing / Reuters

Comments

[Tim Jarrett]

"Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush."

Oh really?

According to the Boston Globe, who unlike you appear to have actually done research into signing statements, "Bush's signing statements have drawn fire because he has used them to challenge more than 1,100 sections of bills-- more than all previous presidents combined." And that was in June 2007, more than a year before his presidency ended. Additionally, he used signing statements to eliminate legal restrictions on his own actions. (http://tinyurl.com/3yf55d)

Clinton, by contrast, challenged only 140 sections of laws over 8 years. (http://tinyurl.com/pxrtt)

I think it's more than a little disingenuous to set up a false comparison between Clinton and Bush and then use that to smear Obama. I think it's misleading and reckless, and unworthy of the LA Times.

[Michael]

At least 2 bloggers have challenged facts in this post about Clinton's signing statements. What is the response? http://tinyurl.com/c9jzbd

[Skip Daniels]

"Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush"? That goes beyond stretching the truth and enters the territory of outright lie. Try this: "That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, 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, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio." (source: NYTimes http://tinyurl.com/dbz7p8)

[bugmenot]

I'm not sure if you simply don't understand what signing statements are, or if you are deliberately blurring the lines of what Obama is actually doing.

Signing statements have been around for 200 years. Every president has used them. But Bush Jr. is the first president who used them to openly bypass the law and declare that he didn't have to obey Congressional mandates. *That* is the issue, not the signing statements themselves. Obama is restoring the practice to its original form, using them to cheerlead on bills/laws he really likes and to point out potentially sticky Constitutional issues.

Unless and until he actually uses signing statements to declare that he doesn't have to follow the law, as Bush Jr. did, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

[Mark D]

Um ... Bill Clinton did not use signing statements way more than Bush did, and you're playing a bit fast and loose with the facts. Here they are, courtesy of the NYT:

"Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. The practice became more frequent with the Reagan administration, but it initially drew little attention.

That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, 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, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

[...]

The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers,” and called on Mr. Bush and future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto."

I realize you had a point to make with this entry, but to be so callous with the fact of the matter make me wonder if there was an agenda behind it as well.

[Kyra Zandberg]

I don't know if the writer is too lazy to research, or disengenuous. Either way, giving credit to absolute and ridiculous falsehoods might explain why the newpapers are in trouble. Check your facts, it's easy...GOOGLE.

[Chuck]

Check Steve Benen in Washington Monthly today for a useful clarification of this issue

[jhaygood]

Wow. I accept that you have a partisan take on the issues, which you are applying here in force. Fine. The problem is you have the facts all worng. President Bush abused signing statements in keeping with his absolute power of the Executive approach to the presidency. He exceeded Clinton by a huge degree in signing statements, in number and certainly in manipulative intent. And your implication about some childish "feel good" motive on the part of Obama says more about you than about him.

So just come out and say it, you loved Bush. Fair enough. But get your facts straight.

[not an idiot]

we're not stupid mr. malcolm -- please stop treating us as such. lazy, unprofessional work -- work on it.

[KMF]

http://tinyurl.com/c9jzbd
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)

Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush. But No. 42 is a Democrat and his wife currently works for Obama. So No. 44 is on a big tear right now to distance himself instead from No. 43, the Republican, who's back in Texas and doesn't care but just hearing his name trashed makes Democrats feel good. [...]

Obama doesn't say he won't ever use signing documents. He just says he'll work with Congress about them. Which means he will, of course, sign some, but right now he wants today's news coverage to be on more change to sort-of believe in.

No, this wasn't written by the Republican National Committee to be read on-air by Fox News personalities; it just seems like it.

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."

To hear Malcolm tell it, President Obama is just playing a silly partisan game, "trashing" Bush when Clinton was worse, just to make Democrats "feel good." This is lazy, partisan, and disingenuous analysis.

What's more, Obama didn't rule out the use of signing statements, which Malcolm concludes makes yesterday's announcement "change to sort-of believe in." This, again, is misleading. Obama's decision is entirely in line with historic presidential authority. The problem isn't with the signing statements themselves -- the practice has been around for nearly 200 years -- but with Bush's unprecedented abuse of the presidential tool. The 43rd president took the practice to new heights (or depths, as the case may be), using signing statements to ignore parts of laws he didn't like.

That Obama might, at some point, use signing statements is not controversial, and certainly doesn't point to more of the same. Why Andrew Malcolm is arguing otherwise is a mystery.

[Steven Roussey]

"Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush."

What a shill. I want to have journalists again. What happened? Why do we have to read "bloggers" instead that just make up stuff?

[Polaris]

Wow. Let's call it what it is - that was a misleading pack of lies.

[The Irate Snarkasaurus]

Lurk moar. You clearly don't know much about signing statements or their history if you don't understand why George W. Bush's use of them was extraordinary and unprecedented.

Oh, except you do, and you're being disingenuous. Right, that's political journalism is. I forgot. Congratulations on being a journalist and bearing the weighty responsibility of mediating between the belief systems of your readers and the facts. It's a noble calling. You have earned this day, sir, your salary, for truly contributing something great and worthy to your nations' political discourse. Let us not be constrained by a petty observance of mere salience in our reporting; no, our duty is to provide our readers with the tools they need to buttress their sagging preconceptions against the uncertain wind of these troubled times. A wreath of laurels for this man! A wreath of laurels in their deepest implication.

[jasperjava]

Bill Clinton didn't abuse the signing statements like Dubya did. He might have made a comment about the new law, but he did not repeatedly say that he would ignore it, like Dubya did. Stop lying.

Between this steaming pile of crap amd the homeless-with-a-cellphone embarrassment, Andrew Malcolm is quickly staking out a bid to be the most dishonest, clueless, incompetent, pathetic excuse for a so-called "journalist" out there. Retire. Retire now, before you inflict any more damage to the profession.

[Matthew]

Bush 43 used more signing statements (the term is signing "statements," not "documents") than every other previous president combined, and his usage of them - far more than those other presidents' - is the reason signing statements have such a bad reputation. This is significant because presidents have been using them for 200 years. They are not some recent development, only the aggressiveness and disregard for Congressional authority displayed by the recent president.

With such blatant flaws, this article doesn't warrant a more thorough analysis and response, which might be made, for example, regarding the issue of the constitutionality of signing statements in relation to question of the different government branches' responsibility and capacity to interpret the Constitution for themselves.

Maybe once the author shows a little better understanding of what a signing statement actually is, his comments will deserve a little more consideration.

[kindness]

Am I reading Fox News here?

You are lying when you say President Clinton had more signing statements than bush43 and I can't believe you or your editors don't know that.

bush43 totals - over 1200. Twice as much as all the other Presidents combined.

[bradams]

That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, 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, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

[ibc]

"Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush. But No. 42 is a Democrat and his wife currently works for Obama. So No. 44 is on a big tear right now to distance himself instead from No. 43, the Republican, who's back in Texas and doesn't care but just hearing his name trashed makes Democrats feel good."

Jebus cripes. My five year old writes more coherently than this author. Oh, wait--he used to be Laura Bush's press secretary. It all makes sense now... Wingnut welfare forever!

[tomdurk]

, the qualitative difference in the Bush II approach becomes apparent when considering the number of individual challenges or objections to statutory provisions that are contained in these statements. Of President Bush’s 152 signing statements, 118 (78%) contain some type of constitutional challenge or objection, as compared to 70 (18%) during the Clinton Administration.37 Even more significant, however, is the fact that these 118 signing statements are typified by multiple constitutional and statutory objections, containing challenges to more than 1,000 distinct provisions of law.38

UPDATE: Steve Benen adds:

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."

[ManOutOfTime]

What a poorly-written, rambling, grammatically challenged little post this is.

Accusing the Obama administration of being cynical? Really? From someone affiliated with the most cynical administration in the history of the Republic?

Balderdash!

McCain isn't still in the Senate because he fell off the turnip truck: he's still in the Senate because he was THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. You had your chance, nearly six of eight years of one-party control, and you drove the country into a ditch. We've had enough of you, thanks very much. Bush doesn't care what's said about him? Who cares what he cares about? And who cares what Malcolm thinks about anything?

Losers.

[SPENCER]

you know, your blog is just a tad leaning toward the extreme right; I accept that, this paper keeps hiring ideologues like you to pontificate, instead of report.
But you have to do your research; you are WRONG on every level in this post;
for true research, see this post that slams you detail by detail.
http://tinyurl.com/c9jzbd

[Sembtex]

I believe the Clinton statements contained far less of the "hey, I'm not bound by this" stuff that people have criticized about the Bush signing statements.

See Media Matters: http://tinyurl.com/bs6fsq

[jrshipley]

"Could be considered misleading to some."

LOL.

You mean "is misleading".