Obama Issues Memo On Signing Statements

This hit my in-box while we were chatting with Jameel Jaffer from ACLU. Perfect timing.

Have not had a chance to do a read through this memo from the Obama administration regarding signing statements as yet.  (And won’t for a bit because I’ve got dinner to finish and other things to do.)

But I wanted to give folks an opportunity to read it as well as comment. More on this when I’ve had an opportunity to read, digest and contemplate.  In the meantime, here’s the memo in full:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
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.

BARACK OBAMA

 
7 Responses to "Obama Issues Memo On Signing Statements"
Arbusto | Monday March 9, 2009 02:28 pm 1

As I wrote in EW’s blog:

“WTF? “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….” Either sign the fucking bill or don’t sign the bill (veto). The Executive branch is involved throughout a bills life and therefore should know if it’s acceptable as is. How modifying a bill via a signing statement is Constitutional is beyond me (INAL).”

That Obama wants to have department or agency issue regulations based on Executive interpretations of the bill is one thing, changing the law or enforcing a based on signing statements another.


Leen | Monday March 9, 2009 02:32 pm 2

ot
ot
John Dean’s latest
Beyond the Pale: The Newly-Released, Indefensible Office of Legal Counsel Terror Memos
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, March 6, 2009
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20090306.html
“It will be very difficult for the OPR to find anyone who will say that John Yoo has met the standards of responsibility for an attorney in the Justice Department – other than John Yoo himself, of course.”


Phoenix Woman | Monday March 9, 2009 02:56 pm 3
In response to Arbusto @ 1

Arbusto, signing statements have been around a long time. Up until Bush’s time, they were simply mechanisms for a president to use to comment on legislation. It was David Addington’s innovation to claim that they could be used to alter the legislation. (By the way: Whenever a signing statement of Bush’s has actually been challenged in court, it’s crumpled like toilet paper in the rain.)


Arbusto | Monday March 9, 2009 03:18 pm 4
In response to Phoenix Woman @ 3

The problem is the monkey wrench Bush threw into an already constipated process by his signing statements. And what of those Departments and Agencies that changed Regulations or enforced law based on his wants, that may not have been challenged in court? To me, signing statements shouldn’t have any force or effect, except if released in the Federal Registry, and then taken with a grain of salt.


Lindy | Monday March 9, 2009 04:29 pm 5

Was left behind in the last thread. I wanted to make a point.

In response to Jameel Jaffer @ 56 (show text)

Mr. Jaffer, I know you are gone, but I wanted to make this point anyway. Those committee members do not just represent their constituency. They represent the nation in their committee activities, so each and every one of them is fair game for contact.


bobschacht | Monday March 9, 2009 05:53 pm 6

I thought it was the *Courts* who were the arbiters of what is Constitutional and what isn’t. If Obama has qualms, why not just ask the DOJ to challenge the supposedly unconstitutional provision in court?

Bob in HI


perris | Tuesday March 10, 2009 04:56 am 7

I don’t think signing statements carry any weight what so ever, they suggest the president has constitutional issues and might challenge a provision if unconstitutionality arises.

bush used signing statements to change the law, however him thinking he changed the law and whether or not he did chage the law two things not like each other


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close