NYT: Obama Takes New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws

[highplainsdem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/us/politics/09signing.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is lowering the volume in a long-running argument between Congress and the executive branch over when, if ever, a president has the power to bypass federal statutes he has signed into law.

Legal scholars said the administration’s new approach, which avoids repeating claims of executive power that the White House has previously voiced, could avoid setting off fights with lawmakers. But the approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard, or to compare the number of laws challenged by President Obama with former President George W. Bush’s record.

In Mr. Obama’s first months in office last year, he followed recent precedent and frequently issued statements, when signing bills into law, that the executive branch could disregard provisions that he considered unconstitutional restraints on executive power.

Still, the administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional, especially in cases where it has previously voiced objections elsewhere, officials said.

The White House disclosed its shift when asked why it had not put out a signing statement last month, when Mr. Obama signed a $447 billion spending bill for 2010. It contained several provisions that restricted executive power in ways that the administration had previously asserted were unconstitutional — including in signing statements attached to similar bills and in policy statements it issued about the spending bill as lawmakers drew it up.

“The administration’s views about certain provisions in the omnibus spending bill had previously been publicly communicated,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, “so it wasn’t necessary to duplicate them in a signing statement.”

-snip-

Mr. Bush’s assertive use of the tactic set off a national debate over its propriety. The American Bar Association declared that signing statements “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers,” and argued that the Constitution gave presidents only two choices: veto a bill, or sign it and obey all of it.

But other scholars said the tactic was appropriate if a president cited only mainstream legal theories. Mr. Obama, whose advisers sided with the latter camp, has characterized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse and pledged greater restraint.

Mr. Obama nevertheless challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress. The White House sought to reassure lawmakers that it intended to take those negotiating positions anyway and was merely noting its view that Congress cannot control foreign negotiations. Many lawmakers rejected that theory, and the House quickly voted 429 to 2 to bar officials from disobeying the restrictions.

-snip-

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who led last summer’s backlash, said the White House risked losing Congressional support for international economic organizations. Mr. Frank also said it was “outrageous” to contend that if Congress disagreed with the administration’s opinion that a provision would be unconstitutional, the president could sign the bill and disobey it.

“They have a legitimate right to tell us their constitutional concerns — that’s different from having a signing statement,” Mr. Frank said. “Anyone who makes the argument that ‘once we have told you we have constitutional concerns and then you pass it anyway, that justifies us in ignoring it’ — that is a constitutional violation. Those play very different roles and you can’t bootstrap one into the other.”

-snip-

When Mr. Bush signed one such bill, he issued a signing statement instructing officials to view the law as merely advisory, and they attended at least one such meeting on his watch. By contrast, when Mr. Obama signed another bill with an identical provision, he did not specifically single it out for challenge. But his administration later obtained an Office of Legal Counsel opinion pronouncing it unconstitutional, and officials continued to attend such meetings.

Unlike signing statements, opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel are often secret. Mr. Goldsmith said the administration’s approach of issuing fewer signing statements would mean “somewhat less accountability.”

“I think it’s a bad development if they are not going to highlight for the nation in all these new statutes where they think there are problems,” he said.

The White House, however, said it had given clear public notice about its views.

-snip-

[Bluebear]

1. Less transparent than Bush! What an accomplishment. nt

[QC]

2. But he looks so fetching in his swimsuit! n/t

[Bluebear]

3. SEXAY SEXAY SEXAY!

[QC]

4. Why do you hate America? Why? n/t

[shopgreen]

9. I knew there was a good reason to vote for him.

[AVID]

5. you have an acute reading disorder nt

[highplainsdem]

8. Self-delete. I misread that as a comment on the OP.

[Nite Owl]

6. Isn't it clear now just

why they refused to prosecute any of the wrongs of the Bu$hies. Talk, talk, talk. That's all his campaign was about.

[AVID]

7. oh look..how cute, a bluebear / QC love...er...i mean hatefest

[shopgreen]

10. bluebear is such a widdle cutie.

[Bluebear]

11. Thank you, milwaukee :)

i don't know what "ignored" said but you're a doll :)

[FrenchieCat]

12. Here are the parts of that NYT article that you left out with the intent of

Here's what you left on the cutting room floor....

Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally used signing statements to declare that parts of a bill were unconstitutional and need not be enforced or obeyed as written.

...Mr. Obama has not issued a signing statement since last summer, when one claim set off a bipartisan uproar in Congress. And the administration has decided that Mr. Obama will sometimes sign bills containing provisions it deems problematic without issuing a signing statement that challenges those sections.

Peter M. Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, praised the approach as a step toward a return to the “normalcy” of how presidents used signing statements through Reagan’s first term. Mr. Shane has previously criticized the administration over its frequent early use of the device.

...other scholars said the tactic was appropriate if a president cited only mainstream legal theories. Mr. Obama, whose advisers sided with the latter camp, has characterized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse and pledged greater restraint.

Mr. Obama... challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress. The White House sought to reassure lawmakers that it intended to take those negotiating positions anyway and was merely noting its view that Congress cannot control foreign negotiations. Many lawmakers rejected that theory, and the House quickly voted 429 to 2 to bar officials from disobeying the restrictions.

Last year the Obama administration disregarded a statute that forbid State Department officials to attend United Nations meetings led by nations deemed state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has included that restriction in several recent bills.

with the ironic knowledge that kool kids "in search of their truth",
are always looking for negativism about this administration
and scour anything that could link this admin to the last one nefariously,
they like the half ass shit that you seem to offer.

Same Kool Kids who won't actually ever go up to the actual
article to integrate into more truthful context what you deliberately
leave on the cutting room floor,
and they will instead choose to have a conversation disregarding
important elements that even the corporate media chose to include
to provide much needed context.

In this endeavor, you are well suited.
but in terms of your actual agenda, and what it is that you are trying to do,
it is questionable, at best.

As for those who are sucked into what you gift them,
they share in common your utter lack of intellectual honesty,
and therefore cannot consider themselves as arbitrators of any truth,
because if they find half of any story not to their liking,
like you, they leave it on the cutting room floor, or attempt to stomp on
those that would question their dishonest prepackaged rationale.

[highplainsdem]

13. FrenchieCat, I'll give you a more polite response than you deserve after that diatribe.

I found that NYT article via a blog alarmed about this administration policy for the same reasons I am.

Bluebear has since posted a topic about that blog. (Editing to correct this. Bluebear's topic was posted first. I hadn't seen it, found the blog via Google News.)

I'm aware the administration policy has some defenders, and I posted the link to the entire article. I always post the link. I check links myself.

But my concern about this policy is that it does not promote transparency. And if Bush had done this, DU would have hammered him for it.

[FrenchieCat]

14. You response doesn't cover your choice as to what you left out.

As for my diatribe, some would beg to differ.

This isn't about "defender" vs. "attackers"...
this is in reference to the fact that in reality,
this administration is not using signing statements
in the same manner that the last one did.

However, you posted parts of the articles that would
lead someone to a different conclusion.

That was done deliberately, and that is you twisting the truth
of what you posted.

And no, most folks don't go to the link,
and one shouldn't have to be forced to rebut what you have posted,
simply by posting what you left out....as that only demonstrates
my point; that you are posting only half of the truth,
which in essence, makes what you are posting a lie, period.

And yes, you are correct; you are not the only one that does this.

[highplainsdem]

16. FrenchieCat, my post does not say anywhere that this administration is using signing statements the

same way Bush did.

In fact, the subject line refers to the "new route." And what I quoted spells out the differences between what Bush did and what Obama is doing.

Please read more carefully.

[FrenchieCat]

20. No where do you attempt to inform those who

are commenting that Obama is exactly or is worse than Bush,
within this thread.

And so, it is a fact, that you are unwilling to utilize the parts of the article
that you left on the cutting room floor to even try and put context onto the expected
replies that you are generating with your own cut and paste job.

Please know that I know what you are doing....
and the Kool Kids who pile on to your every post,
are obvious as well.

[Bluebear]

15. There once was a man from Nantucket....

There once was a man from Nantucket
Who kept all his cash in a bucket.

But his daughter, named Nan,
Ran away with a man

And as for the bucket, Nantucket.

(Just joining in the odd posting format merriment)

[QC]

17. There was another man from Nantucket, you know. n/t

[highplainsdem]

18. LOL!

[FrenchieCat]

19. So......

You don't like the way that I format my posts?

So let's go off the topic and talk about that,
instead of pointing out those who deliberately try to generate talking points by leaving information behind.

The problem is that it is you who reads poetry in my words,
when there is none...

If you were familiar with poetry,
you would know the difference.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Ultimately this is what we have the judicial branch for

[highplainsdem]

22. kick

[Bluebear]

23. me too

[highplainsdem]

24. Thanks, Bluebear!

[Bluebear]

25. but of course, highplainsdem!