Jamie here criticizes George Bush’s most recent signing statement, summing it up with “he’ll only follow the law if he likes it,” and suggests that the president should have vetoed the bill if it contains unconstitutional elements.
Prepare for tabbed browsing: Signing statement. Law. Sections the president mentioned in is signing statement: 841; 846; 1079; 1222. Section of the US Code mentioned in §846. National Security Act section mentioned in §1079.
Why no veto? First, there is nothing in any of these laws that blatantly runs afoul of the Constitution. If handled properly, each would conform to constitutional requirements. The president: “The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.” If you’ve got two options of how to enforce the law, and Congress wants one and the president wants the other, the president gets his way. Are possible unconstitutional interpretations worth ditching the law over? Take a gander at the true size of this beast. 602 pages, of which 22 are the table of contents. Though Congress doesn’t number things sequentially (you think math majors get elected?), there’s probably well over a thousand sections to this law. Of which, the president has a minor issue with 4, all of which can be corrected through proper enforcement. If he vetoes this, it goes back to the cesspit at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave, and the odds of it coming back without more crap attached to it are somewhere between slim and none. This is the nature of modern lawmaking. You can fight it or deal with it; this president has decided his priorities are elsewhere. I think it would have bordered on irresponsible for the president to veto the defense appropriations bill because of such petty issues.
Why the signing statement? I’m not completely sure. If the president has the authority to interpret these laws as he sees fit, why doesn’t he just do so without announcing it to the world? Say what you will, but it seems to me that this is much more transparent. It establishes presidential policy in an open manner for all to see. Don’t like his interpretation? Pay attention to what happens, then sue when you think he runs afoul of the law. Without the signing statement, you’d be clueless about which portions he’s going to be particular about enforcing in his particular way.
I’m not going to go too far speculating (like that Boston Globe story did) on what the president’s issues with any of these sections are. Generally, I’d imagine it’s all separation of powers stuff, well past my comfort level. But it’s a misunderstanding to characterize this, as Nancy Pelosi did, as the president announcing he would ignore the law.
Posted by Apollo in We don't need no stinkin' Constitution