Signing Statements

I strongly suggest you listen to this week’s This American Life which is about the dogged pursuit of power by the executive branch. One of the most challenging parts of the episode involved an interview with Charlie Savage about executive power and in particular, signing statements.

While McCain promised he would not use signing statements while in office, both democratic contenders did not exclude the possibility of using signing statements. Here’s a quote from Obama:

“The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation,” Obama answered. But, he added: “No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives.”

Of course the Bush administration argues that it uses signing statements to protect its prerogatives, so Obama doesn’t really have a problem with the overuse of signing statements, just the interpretation.

And from Clinton:

“I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution,” she wrote. “My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.”

And once again, no promise to not use signing statements.

While there is no explicit constitutional limit on signing statements, Wikipedia notes that the Constitution only “empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it.” Beginning with the Reagan administration, the proclivity of a president to issue a signing statement has increased, as has their power.

Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have produced 347 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.

This is an important issue, as I’ve mentioned before I worry about the power of Obama’s canidacy, and probably more so about Clinton’s, who I tend to disagree with more often.

The misuse and increase of unchecked executive power is one of the biggest follies of the current administration. Unchecked power leads to a tyranny of ideas, and possible solutions. If Obama and Clinton are serious about their goal of bringing together Washington they cannot continue to support signing statements. It’s disingenuous and troublesome.