Candidates on executive power
I had not seen this till tipped off by a comment today at a LGM thread, and most of these candidates are long forgotten. Still, it is important for the record: Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum—They assess use of signing statements (Boston Globe, 22 December, 2007). It includes links to the answers provided by each candidate.
Clinton, unsurprisingly, takes the Bush Lite position:
Bill Richardson gets it right, making the point I have made at F&V in the past.
McCain also is forthright (though I do not necessarily believe him, especially given that he would face divided government):
Obama's position is less than reassuring:
I don't see where in the Constitution the President is given the right to issue statements dissenting with provisions of bills he or she has signed into law. It is take it or leave it. All of it. In fact, off the top of my head, I am aware of two Constitutionally given rights--obligations, actually--to issue statements of any kind in an official constitutional capacity: (1) an annual message on the state of the union, and (2) an explanation for a veto. Richardson is right that if the President thinks a law infringes on his or her "constitutional prerogatives" that's precisely the occasion for a veto. In fact, the founders never appear to have countenanced a veto (let along a "I sign, but dissent") based on policy objections; protecting constitutional prerogatives was the basic intent of the veto.
Of course, I say this as someone who would abolish the veto altogether, other than to allow the president to delay implementation pending abstract review of constitutionality by a panel of independent judges. That is more or less what Madison originally proposed, and is the model found nowadays in several European constitutions.
By the way, Giuliani and Huckabee declined to answer the question on signing statements, and Romney thinks that the way Bush has used them is just dandy.
Clinton, unsurprisingly, takes the Bush Lite position:
she might attach a so-called signing statement to a bill reserving a right to bypass "provisions that contradict the Constitution."
Bill Richardson gets it right, making the point I have made at F&V in the past.
if a president thinks that parts of a bill are unconstitutional, then "he should veto it," not issue a signing statement.
McCain also is forthright (though I do not necessarily believe him, especially given that he would face divided government):
As President, I won’t have signing statements. I will either sign or veto any legislation that comes across my desk.
Obama's position is less than reassuring:
"No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush administration has gone much further than that."
I don't see where in the Constitution the President is given the right to issue statements dissenting with provisions of bills he or she has signed into law. It is take it or leave it. All of it. In fact, off the top of my head, I am aware of two Constitutionally given rights--obligations, actually--to issue statements of any kind in an official constitutional capacity: (1) an annual message on the state of the union, and (2) an explanation for a veto. Richardson is right that if the President thinks a law infringes on his or her "constitutional prerogatives" that's precisely the occasion for a veto. In fact, the founders never appear to have countenanced a veto (let along a "I sign, but dissent") based on policy objections; protecting constitutional prerogatives was the basic intent of the veto.
Of course, I say this as someone who would abolish the veto altogether, other than to allow the president to delay implementation pending abstract review of constitutionality by a panel of independent judges. That is more or less what Madison originally proposed, and is the model found nowadays in several European constitutions.
By the way, Giuliani and Huckabee declined to answer the question on signing statements, and Romney thinks that the way Bush has used them is just dandy.
Labels: presidential powers, signing statements, vetoes
posted by MSS at 1:35 PM
3 Comments:
When I read the quote that Obama said that "No one doubts," and combined with the fact that he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, I thought it was something to take seriously.
So, taking a break from my important studies, I looked up on line for something about signing statements, and found this article from Bernie Nussbaum from the Clinton I administration.:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm
My knowledge of signing statements is rather limited to what the media has said about Bush II's use of them. I wonder, though, if they aren't a outgrowth of a Presidential system. With a signing statement, we (both We the People as well as our representatives in the legislative and judicial branches) know how a President plans to enforce these laws passed by the legislature.
That not only brings a greater measure of transparency in executive actions but also a kind of check -- because he or she has to say up front what his ideas on the meaning of a law is -- and therefore allows continued debate on the merits and demerits of a law and its enforcement in the public sphere.
Is there a reason that Clinton and Obama say almost identical things about signing statements, Obama's, if anything, being heavier than Clinton's and only Clinton gets the Bush Lite tag? Signing statements are a revival of the dispensing power last claimed by the Stuart kings.
I think jmp makes a valid point there. But I really do not have much more to say about the connection of signing statements to transparency and the procedures of a separated-powers system than what I have said previously.
There are several posts in the category, vetoes and signing statements, especially the earlier ones (.e. those of 12 Oct., 2006, and several in Jan. of that year), where I believe I addressed these issues.
To Alan, I still see a difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of how much they accept the Bush logic on signing statements. But I agree it is not as big a difference as one might hope for.
Post a Comment
<< Home