Many people believe that the unprecedented expansion of presidential power was the defining feature of the Bush presidency. Much of this expanded executive authority was accomplished through the use of signing statements--written comments issued by a president at the time of the signing of a bill. In the past, signing statements were nothing more than commentary by a president on the appropriateness or timeliness of certain legislation. Since the Bush Administration, however, signing statements have been used to effectively veto parts of legislation that the President believes to be unconstitutional, or with which he does not agree. President Obama seems to be continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor in his frequent use of signing statements (http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm ).
After reading the New York Times article linked below, do you think the presidential use of signing statements is justified given the president's role as Commander-in-Chief and his duty "to faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" especially in this post-9/11 world? Or do you believe that the use of signing statements undermines the notion of separation of powers as conceived by our Founding Fathers? Please justify your answer with specific reference to the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Obama's%20Embrace%20of%20a%20Bush%20tactic%20riles%20Congress&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
After reading the article, I do understand the benefits of signing statements, the main benefit being that instead of having to veto an entire bill, the president can simply nullify certain provisions. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the whole idea, however. I don't think that one person should have that much power in determining what goes into law. If Congress as a whole voted on a piece of legislation and passed it, that legislation is the way it is for a reason. Even though I agree with a lot of Obama's signing statements, I still don't agree that they should have that much power, because if it were the other way around and there was a Republican president I wouldn't appreciate him or her changing things to better suit their personal beliefs. Still, I'm not that familiar with signing statements so I might reevaluate after reading what other people have to say on the subject...
I agree with Lizzi on this issue in many respects. Although I understand where the concept comes from, I'm not sure I totally agree with it. I don't really mind if a president vetoes small pieces of legislation (ie. something not overly important) rather than create more gridlock and veto the whole bill; but where does it stop. As Lizzi said, Congress passed the bill the way it was for a reason. Also, there doesn't seem to be much of a check or a balance on this system which bothers me to a great extent. Little things quickley turn into bigger and bigger things. I think that it has the possibility to become out of control, with the few checks that it seems to have.
I sort of agree with Lizzi and Ellen, but I also have some reservations about damning these signings. I can definitely see it being far too much power for any single person as well as the many problems that can be associated with this. However, there are a few redeeming factors to signing. Mainly, signing gives the president the ability to simplify bills. Almost every bill becomes a Christmas tree bill these days, and this gives the president the ability to take out these pointless sections. It also allows the president the ability to partially veto bills that would give him a bad rep with the public but help the nation as a whole. When going back to the overall goodness of this, however,it is pretty obviously a bad thing that should be deemed unconstitutional due to a breech of the president's powers.
I think that this practice is unconstitutional. I understand the benefits that Obama gets from doing this, but i dont think he has the right to that kind of power. I think that if congress passes the whole bill, the president has to accept it as is, or deny it completely. I don't think it is right for him to take what he likes about a bill, and leave what he doesn't. congress passed the entire bill and he either agrees or disagrees. I don't have much of a problem with how Obama is using this now, but what I don't like is the potential for this power to reshape a bill completely.
In reading this article I agree with Karly that signing statements is unconstitutional. This practice gives the president too much power in determining laws. I think it goes against the whole idea of separation of powers. The president's role is to either sign the bill or veto, it is not their job to be nullifying certain provisions within the bill.
I believe that the use of signing statements does undermine separation of powers and gives the president too much control. The president shouldn't be able to pick and choose what he likes and dislikes, he/she would possible abuse the opportunity. But two sides to every story, this does make the process a little simpler, would be an obstacle for any christmas tree bill, and make policies more clean cut. It does bother me though that as the article stated, Obama issued a memorandum saying that this was okay... shouldn't someone be challenging that?
I agree with Lizzi in that i don't think that the president should have that much power and that it seems unconstitutional. And like Ellen says where does it stop? Where is the line drawn? It also seems that Obama is sort of going back on what he said during his election. Initially he would issue them with greater restraint as he thought that Bush has 'abused' the power of signing statements. However it seems like he is doing exactly what Bush did.
I agree with what Paige said about how Obama is being hypocritical about signing statements. He talked about how Bush mistreated and abused his powers when he was president but now Obama is doing the same thing as Bush. Although it isn't the same degree as him it still makes you question him. Also I agree with Sammy on how on the flip side it is making the legislation process simpler and clear cut. Maybe if more checks on this system it could become a more fair and constitutional practice.
The thing is, there a benefits and there are problems, but most of all there are problems. This gives the president too much power and congress too little effect. If he wanted to, Obama could interpret a bill that requires kids to pass a state test to graduate to saying that there should be a subsidy for banana farmers. It seems ridiculous, but nobody who would say anything is reading over every bill he signs. This practice is unconstitutional because it is not expressly stated, and it is neither necessary nor proper.
I believe that to some extent the President should be able to use signing statements, if used appropriately and if they are not abused. However, I think no matter who the President is, Democrat or Republican, they always tend to abuse their power as President, especially with signing statements. Obama said that Bush completely abused his ability to use signing statements, and he said he would never abuse that power. But as we all read in the article he has abused that power in a few signing statements that he's issued. Congressmen are starting to notice this and they are complaining. I think if this power is abused, it does really undermine the separation of powers. The president has way too much control as it is, so why should we allow him to have more power by abusing signing statements?
I agree with Remington when he says that there are benefits and problems, but mostly problems. Although in theory the idea isn't overly harmful, it seems to be often abused. It undermines the separation of powers. Also, there is no check on this system, which is what our nation is founded on, which to me seems at least partially unconstitutional. I do see the benefits that signing statements could have, however, I think they end up doing more harm than good and give the President an inordinate amount of power, power that needs to be checked or balanced in some sort of way.
I agree with Ellen when she says that signing statements is a slippery slope. Like she said, signing a statement to get rid of a small, unimportant part of a law wouldn't be that bad, and might actually turn out to be good. However, who determines what part of a law is unimportant? What if the President finds something he doesn't really care for and so signs a statement about it, but that "little" part affects thousands of people? Conversely, what if the President just decides that the law he approved a couple years ago, doesn't help him anymore and so alters it drastically enough to fit into what he wants? This is what George W. Bush did with the ban on torture. Signing statements, though at first may be an advantage, quickly turns into a very dangerous expansion of the President's powers. The government must institute some way to check this power.
Signing statements to me seem to be a sort of loophole in the constitution that allows the president to bypass legislation. Although this is a much more efficient method of amending legislation, this violates the idea of separation of powers in our Government. Laws should be amended by elected representatives who are much more responsive to their constituents, as they represent a smaller constituency than the president. This isn't a question of efficiency or individual bills; its a question of fundamentals and ideals. We need to respect the separation of the three branches of government.
I really do not like how some people who attacked Bush's use of signing statements are now much more relaxed at the idea that Obama is using it, only because he's using it to make decisions they agree with (cough cough CNN). This goes both ways, where now a lot of conservatives are now opposed to signing statements just because Obama is using them to pass his party's legislation. This just shows that people no longer have a set of ideals they stay true to; most people are told what to believe by the political party they are supposed to follow rather than make the decision for themselves.
I agree with Remington and Ellen about there being both benefits and problems of signing statements. While I believe it is important for the president to give his/her opinion on a bill, I think it is absolutely necessary that Congress have the power to check a president's signing statements. To pass a bill with the signing statements but without any review of what the president has offered, is simply irresponsible. I appreciate that signing statements move the process along for passing bills, however it is vital that there be a check on this presidential power, so as to avoid the president having too much power over congressional legislation.
I think signing statements are okay to a point. I understand the viewpoint that Congress should be the ones making the laws and that the President's place is to either give it the okay or veto. Signing statements are, as my peers have said, dangerous andhave the potential to slip out of control.
However, signing statements are valuable in that they allow a bill to still get passed with only minor adjustments, preventing longer delay in a topic that might be crucial to thousands of people. If I need social security or something, I can't wait an extra couple of months while Congress re-drafts the bill, I need aid now. Not the greatest example, but you get the picture (I hope). So it can go either way.
Personally, I think that signing statements are a "necessary evil." They're not great, but they have their benefits. What really should be done is to have a committee meet with the President BEFORE the bill is passed and given to him so he can make his or her edits BEFORE it is finalized and sent to him or her for completion. This way, the President is still part of the process (which I believe he or she should be), but limits the amount and potential abuse of signing statements.
Before reading the article I didn't feel strongly either way about signing statements, but after reading the article I definitely feel that they give too much power to the president. I do understand that, as lizzi said, the one good thing that comes out of this is that the president doesn't have to veto an entire bill, but rather is able to avoid going through the whole process in Congress and just remove a few portions of the bill. Except I don't think it's very democratic to have only one person deciding what portions of the bill stay. As lizzi said, Congress passed the bill as a whole and the president should have to sign or veto the bill as a whole. Allowing signing statements is giving way too much power to the president, especially because there is no check on this system except Congress passing new bills to nullify his statements which could take years to actually accomplish.
I think Teddy's proposal for a meeting with the president before they make any decision on a bill would be an effective way for Congress to check the president and make sure he/she doesn't have too much power. If a president has decided that he/she would like to pass a bill, but only with some changes, it is important that they share their thoughts with Congress so as to come up with an agreement or compromise. By the time the meeting is over, the bill will be ready to be passed without the need for any additional changes from the president.
I agree with the many people saying it should be unconstitutional in most cases but I believe that when Lincoln and FDR and JFK used them they used them properly. So i think they should be unconstitutional until proven constitutional. Also there should be more checks on the president in the first place. Other than that I think it's okay. Oh and it should avoid conflicts.
Irini, I agree with you (except with the idea that FDR used them properly, because of the Japanese Internment Camps...). Though one person should not have the ability to change a bill that an entire Congress has slaved over, as Kelsey said, I DO think that the President has the right to be a part of the process and that in some circumstances he/she should be able to make decisions on his/her own. This may lead to abuse, but keep in mind that there are LOTS of checks and balences that will prevent a President from crossing the line.
Sometimes things need to happen ASAP in order to prevent something awful, such as in a situation of war. Crucial moments could be wasted if decisions were to be debated over in Congress.
However, I recognize that this is a VERY tricky suggestion and lends itself to abuse easily. So I think it's okay, but in very select situations, such as national crises, and even then I think the President should have a council who he/she check in with.
For example, maybe he/she should be required to call a council of the Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and Senate, and his/her VP before making any signing statements or executive orders. That way, a decision can be made quickly and efficiently without trashing a whole bill or risking the safety of the public while still making sure the President's role doesn't get too out of control.
I feel that there is a fine line between the practical use and the abusive use of signing statements. The NYT article stated that signing statements are “appropriate because it is impractical to veto important bills over small problems” and this is a very valid statement that only a scaremonger would argue against. On the other hand there has lately been a trend on abusing the power of these signing statements and there needs to be a check on the system possibly from the Judicial Branch.
I believe that there is a place for signing statements as long as they aren't abused. There are cases where they do come in handy like if Congress is passing a law but doesn't make clear outlines about it, at least the president can try to make an interpretation of it. Some of Bush's signing statements at least made it clear where he stood on things. By making it clear he didn't consider waterboarding torture, he at least made sure he wasn't breaking the law by the way it would be taken. Still, I don't think that signing statements should have much power. They at least ought to be reviewed by Congress so that way, the President can't end up making signing statements that could techinically alter the bill's intention.
After reading the article, i feel as though these signing statements are mostly a bad thing. I agree with Remi and Ellen in that although there are definitely some good aspects of signing statements, the problems they cause are more numerous. As an idea it isn't so bad, because like Remi said it can weed out some of the irrelevant parts of the bill and simplify it. However, I think that that much power shouldn't be in a single person's hands. As we've seen already, Signing statements are being used more frequently as the recent presidents take advantage of this power, and use it to mold the bill into what they want it to be. What I'm wondering is how far will the Congress and Supreme Court let the President go until something is said and limited. Because I think if nothing is done, the Presidents in the future will keep taking advantage of this power, and do things beyond what people already see as controversial.
I agree with Remmington. While I believe that signing statements are helpful in simplifying and consolidating bills, especially christmas tree bills, I also believe that signing statements is beyond the powers of the president. Like Ellen said, there are no checks or balances on signing statements, which is a problem. The president could say whatever he/she wants in a signing statement and it would automatically become law. I definitely think that this power goes beyond what is "necessary and proper" and has turned more into a practice that slaps Congress in the face in a sense. I would be more satisfied with this practice if there was a way COngress could check the signing statements. Until then, signing statements should not be a power of the President.
It seems as though, while these signing statements maybe aren't the best solution, there does need to be a way for the president to completely avoid vetoing bills. It does seem like a lot of power for one person to have, but if you think of it in respect to the president having the power to veto the bill completely it's not all that bad. It seems as though for our system to work that we do need signing statements, but perhaps peole would be more happy if the president didn't use them too often or that he's sure not to cut out things that are clearly important to the Congress and don't mess up the main structure of the bill. Signing statements are a way for the executive branch to check the legislative branch, but if maybe there was another check on the president after he has signed a signing statement people would feel better about it.
I agree with Mary. the fact that there are no checks and balances on this scares me. The president has too much power with this, and it only takes one to run with the power and potentially do very damaging things. Like Mary said, i may be okay with it if there was a way for congress to adjust the signing statement afterwards, or some kind of check on the president's statements. without it though, this seems unconstitutional in my eyes.
Signing statements, to support what others have said, are beneficial to a certain degree. I agree with the idea of making changes and adding in certain conditions and exceptions instead of a general veto, but it can go overboard. As we have seen with Bush and his infamous signing statement enthusiasm, sometimes a President can over extend his authority, possibly undermining the will and beliefs of countless more than himself. The law didn't just spring up, it required the hard work of many, many people and for one man to completely change their work for his own will... it just seems wrong. It's too much power for the President, and it requires Congress to put too much faith in him.
However, I believe would like to add that I can agree with the freedom of interpretation that is bestowed upon the President. If kept in moderation, the bill can be looked over by a single man instead of several bias ones. His interpretation is ultimately what is important and enforced, which makes the whole process risky business, but it does give the bill dimension.
it seems to me that the main concern of most people isn't the signing statement themselves but the way the presidents have begun to take advantage of this power. I also find that this is my main concern. I agree with Kelly in that these signing statments are helpful to some degree because they allow the president to avoid vetoing complete bills. However the way the presidents have begun to use this power is what i don't like. Like Mary recommended I would feel more comfortable about the signing statements if therewas some sort of check on this power.
I believe that the extent to which Bush took signing statements should not be repeated. 1,200 signing statements? That seems ridiculous. Obama has signed 5 signing statements and it seems to me they have been for very good reasons. One was issued because a law required him to get approval from a military subordinate? That is a direct violation of the commander-in-chief philosophy and was way beyond Congress' scope in passing such a provision. I definitely understand the use of signing statements, they allow the president to not veto a large bill for small reasons or to take out provisions he or she deems unconstitutional. To me as long as signing statements are used in moderation they are perfectly fine. Congress can always essentially override it by passing a law with more specific language.
I agree with Lisa about the idea that signing statements themselves aren't bad, but the way the president has been abusing them is bad. I really like Teddy's idea about having the president meet with others and have them sign off and agree with his signing statements. This seems reasonable, especially in comparison to having the president veto the entire bill and having it go through Congress again or allowing the president to have the sole power to interpret the law as he pleases.
I think that Teddy has a really good point about the president having more of a role in the formation of bills. I like his idea about having a committee meeting of some sort after a bill has been passed in Congress so that there is a check to the signing statement and so that elected representatives can still give their input, thus speaking for their constituents. Of course, Obama is technically speaking for all of America, but I think that having representatives and senators present would make the process much more balanced and constitutional.
I agree with Kelsey that a signing statement can, many times, be better than vetoing an entire bill. Signing statements are an easy way to make little provisions on a bill, opposed to Congress revising and revoting on the entire thing. However, Lizzi makes a good point that having that much power could be a bad thing. If Congress is able to finally get something passed, why should one person have the ability to pick and choose things from it? There needs to be some sort of restriction on signing statements, but I'm unsure what this should be.
While signing statements seem like a practical way for Presidents to clarify little technicalities in bills, the scope of the power of these statements has expanded too much. Technically, singing statements give the president the final word on all federal legislation. Sure the President's power might be checked after the fact with an impeachment process or a supreme court case, but it seems like there should be a more immediate check on this presidential power, like perhaps signing statements have to be approved by Congress.
Maybe instead of having a presidential input be right before the signing in if they were part of the discussion process when the bill goes to the floor of either house? This might be a lot for the president to undertake but it might be beneficial for bills that look likely to pass in the system. His/Her commentary on specific aspects would be addressed earlier rather than right at the signing of the bill. This might be a solution. I believe that there should be a clear cut decision, whatever it may be on the approval or disapproval of signing documents asap. The longer we let the situation run the stickier it will get.
David I disagree with your negative view of signing statements. While it's true this is a new power and a very uncharted one I think it can be a important new tool for the president. Many powers now attributed to agencies etc were not originally ascribed to them. The supreme court did not originally have the power of judicial review which we now definitely agree is well within their power.I don't think signing statements should be used unlimitedly but I definitely think it is a power for the president to have.
Nils, the points you make are valid and I agree that this power could become a great tool in simplifying and expediting the law making process. However, David makes a good point, checks and balances are what the American government is founded on. I think that in order to be able to safely and effectively use this power, the government needs to create some sort of check on this presidential power
After reading the article its clear that there are some advantages to signing statements because it helps a president show his disagreement with only parts of bills instead of the whole thing forcing the bill to often times go through a lengthy process of being re-proposed. However i agree with some of the comments that i read that this is too great a tool for the president to have and that it ruins the nature of checks and balances by not allowing congress to overrule the signing statements which is basically the new form of the bill they passed.
It seems that many of us on the blog are of a similar opinion when it comes to the constitutionality of these signing statements. Like Lizzi said, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the content of the signing statements, it's impossible to ignore the enormous amount of power that they grant the president. Also, based on the article it seems that this view is echoed throughout Congress--even across party lines. Democrats and Republicans alike have criticized Obama's overuse of signing statements, indicating that the practice is in need of some sort of reform.
As Anna said they do give the president considerable power, and i still want to support my point about how it should somehow be more structured and out of reach of the legislative branch but still be unable to completely revolutionize an era. For example President Bush Jr. 's torture signing statement was pretty blatantly ignoring Congress's wishes and it should have been checked. Since it wasn't the whole Guantanamo bay fiasco occurred. It would take time and effort but it would be worth it to help define a vague power of the president.
At first I thought that signing statements were wrong and gave the president too much power. But after reading other people's comments I do realize that there is a purpose to these statements. Like Kyle said, it gives the president the advantage to only allow or to pull out certain parts of the bill - avoiding going through the whole process again with re-proposing the bill. Signing statements do have their place in the law making process, however it is just a slippery slope between them being necessary and the president abusing them.
I like Teddy's idea about having the President meet with the committee before the bill is passed and submitted to the president for approval. This would help to really get rid of the signing statements and I think it wouldn't cause as much controversy. The president would be given less power, but still be involved in the process of creating a law.
I agree with what Teddy said. The president shouldn't be allowed to just change the entire meaning of the bill without some sort of input by Congress. Something like a meeting with the speaker of the house would provide a decent check because then the president can't just change the bill without the approval of a Congressman. On the other hand, there are cases where the signing statements do work because sometimes, Congress just isn't clear about the meaning of the bills it passed.
I understand the use of signing statements by president bush, it seems to me that it is very similar to the way the supreme court effectively changes the meaning of the constitution by "interpreting it". Essentailly, its just another check on the power of the legislature that seems to fall within the presidents sphere of powers. When creating a government that had a different branch enforce the laws then the branch that made them, the founders certainly must have forseen the clash that occurs when the president does something like using a signing statement.
I agree with the people above that pointed out the benefits to the ability it gives president to effectively veto only part of a bill. I am a big fan of the line item veto we have here in Minnesota, because it gives the executive the ability to remove tacked on amendments not relevant to the core of the bill, to pass a fundamentally good bill while removing certain bad parts of it. Singing statements, although not as powerful as the line item veto, are a step in the right direction in terms of giving the president the power to trim down bloated bills passed by congress.
I'm with Kelsey on this one. Signing statements aren't a bad idea, but it's definitely possible that the way that they are being used is showing a little bit of abuse of power. We would all be reassured if we knew that the president was talking about things that don't have to do with the original bill, and making sure that important things remain intact.
I am really not too big of a fan of presidential signing statements. I think that they completely negate the checks that are purposely instituted to limit executive power. I think that if signing statements continue there should at least be stringent rules implemented to make sure that the president can't do anything they want. I think that President Bush was a perfect example of why signing statements are dangerous. President Bush was able to make his life easy by not having to veto bills but simply say that he can interpret and carry through with the bill as he so pleases.
I think that Lizzi made a very good point with her statement that even though she doesn't mind President Obama's signing statements, she would definitely have a different opinion if it were Bush that was still in office. After reading many of the comments people have made though I feel like our class has made a pretty unanimous decision that signing statements are largely a bad thing. There isn't much of an argument to debate about here but I think that we should look into possible strategies to fix the evils of signing statements. While they are a "necessary evil," we could limit their use and limit how much the president changes the bill because of his personal interpretation. All in all, signing statements are just kind of scary because what if we elect a President who turns out to be a monster?
I agree with what Rory said about signing statements being abused by people like president Bush. In theory I think signing statements are effective because they allow certain parts of a bill to be amended without having to go through the long and arduous process of sending it through the house and senate and getting it re-approved. However, practically i don't think that signing statements are a good idea because they allow the president to unfairly bypass his checks and it gives the president too much power. I don't think signing statements should be allowed
I agree with the various people who have said that their biggest concern is the "slippery slope" factor. Although there has not yet been any particular signing statement that's caused an enormous nation-wide controversy, one can imagine something like that happening in the future. Another potential issue is that a president might abuse the power that these signing statements give him, which would completely throw of the balance of power in our federal government. However, this would be an extreme case and seems unlikely at this point.
I too like Teddy's idea of having the President submit his input before a bill has been signed. Of course this would force congress to then revote on the bill, which would make it even more difficult than it already is to get legislation passed. It seems there should be a shortcut for the President to make minor clarifications in laws that can be checked by easily checked congress without the lengthy legislative process.
After reading everybody's comments on how to find some middle ground between full on signing statements and not having them at all I can see that the solution would never be perfect. Any solution to the problem of signing statements would have problems of its own.
Singing Statements have become more freely used by president Bush but the article says that president Obama has shown much more restraint. This restraint by president Obama shows that President Bush could be a outliner in the use of signing statements and it is a issue we don't need worry about at the present time.
I have to agree with the fact that although its a rising concern, the signing issue isn't something that is used to much and is so detrimental to the country that it should be focused on and made such a big deal of. We have more important issues to focus on, but my opinion is that signing statements really is not that bad for the government and can be quite useful at times.
Post a Comment