Candidate Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration for its
promiscuous use of signing statements. And appropriately
so, since presidents should veto legislation which they believe
to be unconstitutional, rather than choosing to apply the
provisions they like and ignore the rest.
However, guess who now is employing signing statements?
Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing
guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President
Obama issued such a directive himself.
Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion
spending bill that includes billions for items known as
earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to
projects in their districts. Obama promised during the
presidential campaign to curb such spending.
He also issued a "signing statement" in which he objected to
provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had
advised "raise constitutional concerns." Among them are
provisions that Obama said would "unduly interfere" with his
authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to
proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with
international organizations and foreign governments.
Another provision, Obama said, would limit his discretion to
choose who performs specific functions in military missions.
On Monday, Obama ordered a review of former President George W.
Bush's guidelines for implementing bills passed by Congress,
his signing statements.
Bush often issued statements when he signed bills, objecting to
parts of the legislation. Critics said the statements often
showed government officials how to get around a law if Bush
disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.
"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements
can be abused," Obama wrote Monday in a memo to the heads of
executive departments and agencies. "Constitutional signing
statements should not be used to suggest that the president
will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy
disagreements."