Amazing how quickly reformers change their mind once they realize how hard it is to actually get things done, huh?

From previous discussions with Apollo, I’m persuaded that there are legitimate uses for signing statements. Specifically — and correct me if I’ve got this wrong, Apollo — they create an official paper trail of the president’s own understanding of bills. If the legislation ever comes before the courts, the judges will have the signing statement to rely on in addition to the Congressional record to discern original intent. This is a good thing.

However, my understanding President Bush also used signing statements as a kind of line-item veto, which was both foolish and constitutionally suspect. Foolish in that no future president is bound by those statements (see Obama, Barack) and constitutionally unsound because we don’t have a line item veto (though perhaps we should). That Bush used his regular veto so rarely: only 12 times during his administration. Indeed (adjusted for time in office), he used vetoes only 19% as often as Carter, 15% as often as Regan, 13% as often as his father, 33% as often as Clinton. Admittedly, he had a friendly congress during the first six years of his administration, but I doubt anyone would argue Bush shouldn’t have vetoed more often. But conservatives, of all people, should like it when presidents veto and be skeptical when they let things slide through with asterisks.