Barack Obama

Obama Memo Limits Use Of Signing Statements

Zachary Roth | March 9, 2009, 5:26PM

President Obama has issued a new memo that seeks to restrict his administration's use of presidential signing statements, one of the key techniques that President Bush used to get around the law.

Among other things, the memo directs executive branch officials to tell Congress ahead of time if there are constitutional concerns about pending legislation, thereby reducing the number of occasions when a signing statement will be needed.

It also declares that the president will act with "caution and restraint" in determining whether an act of Congress is unconstitutional.

And it pledges that the president's signing statements will identify "constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection."

You can see the full memo here ...

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | May 1, 2008, 9:59AM

You know those secret legal opinions by the Justice Department that tell the administration how far it can go without breaking the law? After all the hullabaloo over John Yoo's five year-old torture authorization memo, Attorney General Michael Mukasey assured Congress that the Justice Department really was working on releasing other memos. But he made no promises.

And yesterday, during a hearing on secret law held by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) before the Senate Judiciary Committee, an official from the Office of Legal Counsel promised that the Department would allow members of the intelligence committees to see them -- but lawmakers won't be able to keep paper or electronic copies. The Department says that it's thinking really hard about whether the Senate Judiciary Committee can see them as well. For some reason, Feingold and his peers didn't seem satisfied.

The man who was the top classification official until January of this year appeared at the hearing and testified that the Department's decision to mark Yoo's torture memo "secret" and keep it classified for years after it was withdrawn showed "either profound ignorance of or deep contempt for" classification rules.

But as Donald Rumsfeld put it, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. And with this group, it's always a toss-up which is more worrying:

At the hearing, a department official, John P. Elwood, disclosed a previously unpublicized method to cloak government activities. Mr. Elwood acknowledged that the administration believed that the president could ignore or modify existing executive orders that he or other presidents have issued without disclosing the new interpretation.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, challenged Mr. Elwood, saying the administration's legal stance would let it secretly operate programs that are at odds with public executive orders that to all appearance remain in force....

Mr. Whitehouse, who sits on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, has said the administration's contention that it can selectively modify executive orders "turns The Federal Register into a screen of falsehoods behind whose phony regulations lawless programs can operate in secret."

Mr. Elwood said publicly available legal opinions dating from 1987 make clear the Justice Department's view that the president has the power to change executive orders.

Mr. Whitehouse said, "There's an important piece missing from that, which is not telling anybody and running a program that's completely different from the executive order."

Only seven more months of the Bush administration to go, and plenty more to find out.

Signing Statements

McCain: Bush Should Veto Anti-Torture Bill

Paul Kiel | February 20, 2008, 2:29PM

No real surprise here. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted against a bill in the Senate that would have confined the CIA to interrogations outlined in the Army Field Manual -- that means no ambiguity about the use of waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation" techniques. We explained his position at length here.

The President has threatened to veto the bill, and because sometime swing votes like McCain, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) oppose it, a veto override vote in the Senate seems certain to fail. Today, McCain told reporters that Bush should veto the bill and said he's banking on the consistency of his position on the issue of torture overriding the subtlety of his stance. From the AP:

"I think I can show my record is clear. I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture.

"I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," McCain said. "So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate" international rules against torture.

Of course, that's the administration's position, too: we don't "torture."

Interestingly, McCain also took the opportunity to outline a real difference between himself and the president: he says that if he were elected president, he wouldn't use signing statements -- those statements Bush has tacked on to a number of important bills (including McCain's anti-torture amendment) that essentially say, "NOT." As McCain put it: "If I disagree with a law that's passed, I'll veto it."

Signing Statements

Report: Bush "Signing Statements" May Have Affected Implementation of Laws

Paul Kiel | June 18, 2007, 1:06PM

President Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office -- in what are called "signing statements." But what has been unclear ever since The Boston Globe's landmark story on the statements (which won Charlie Savage a Pulitzer) is just what effect these obscure little statements, published in the federal register, have.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) wanted to know just that, so they asked for an analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, of last year's appropriations bills. The report, released today, is sure to lead to further investigation.

The agency examined a sample of appropriations bills from last year, focusing on 19 provisions that were affected by a presidential signing statement added to a bill -- in each case, Bush invoked the "unitary executive" theory or some other justification for disputing the bill. The result: of the 19 provisions, six were not executed as authorized by Congress.

Read more »

Signing Statements

Past Is Prologue: Bush to Buck Congress' Yokes

Spencer Ackerman | February 5, 2007, 10:08AM

It's that most wonderful time of the year: budget roll-out day. This year's massive budget is the first in which spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- $100 billion through September; and then $145 billion through 2008 -- is embedded into the total defense appropriation, as opposed to masking the price through so-called "supplemental" funding later in the year.

But don't expect an end to appropriations-based chicanery. Even though the new Democratic Congress is sure to embed any number of restrictions on the war into the language of the next defense bill, President Bush has an important arrow in his quiver for doing what he wants outside of the budget process: signing statements, his constitutionally-murky declarations of how he intends to implement a law. And if last year's defense bill is any indication, he's set to use them.

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

jsingal | February 1, 2007, 10:38AM

The Still-Hampered Iraq Rebuilding Effort
The Special Inspector General of Iraq Reconstruction reported yesterday that "despite nearly $108 billion that had been budgeted for the reconstruction of Iraq since the 2003 invasion, the country’s electrical output and oil production were still below prewar levels and stocks of gasoline and kerosene had plummeted to their lowest levels in at least two years." Many American contractors are suspected of having wasted funds; others, such as DynCorp, which "[billed] the United States for millions of dollars of work that was never authorized and [started] other jobs before they were requested," may have committed outright fraud. (The New York Times)

Continue below for the rest of the day's muck...

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

pauljustin | July 27, 2006, 8:33AM

DNC Chief Stops in Florida to Revive Ailing Harris Campaign
DNC chairman Howard Dean gave a fiery speech in Florida yesterday, with at least one zinger aimed at Rep. Katherine Harris that's sure to rile up her weary supporters in the GOP base. "This is not Russia and she is not Stalin," Dean told a crowd of Democratic supporters Wednesday, comparing "Pink Sugar" herself to the infamous autocratic Soviet leader who was responsible for the deaths of millions.

That line gave the Harris campaign what's sure to have been a refreshing change of pace -- a chance to comment on how crazy someone else is. "The people of Florida know that Congresswoman Harris will stand for what is right and not respond in kind to such scurrilous attacks," Jennifer Marks told reporters, responding to Dean's scurrilous attack.

Read more »

Signing Statements

Specter Releases Sue-the-Prez Draft Bill

Justin Rood | July 26, 2006, 4:12PM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) released a final draft of his anti-signing-statement bill this afternoon -- yes, the one that other GOP senators are already saying they won't support.

Full text after the jump. Legal eagles, what do you think?

Update: We've uploaded the bill as a pdf here.

Read more »

John McCain

On Key Constitutional Issue, A "Maverick" Rides with the Herd

Paul Kiel | July 26, 2006, 2:36PM

In response to questions from Congressional Quarterly about whether he would support Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) bill to counter the President's use of "signing statements," McCain said this:

“I think the president will enforce the law."

That sounds pretty faint -- but if you consider the context, it just sounds lame.

The point of the signing statement, of which Bush has made unprecedented use, is for the President to declare that he will not enforce part or all of a law.

McCain knows this -- Bush used the gambit to gut the Vietnam War veteran's own torture ban legislation. As one law professor described Bush's move to the Boston Globe:

"[Bush's] signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me.... 'They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

McCain -- himself a former torture victim -- worked hard to assemble veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress to pass a torture ban only to see the president undermine it in an instant.

So how can he say he doesn't think the President's abuse of signing statements is a problem?

Signing Statements

CQ: Specter's "Sue the Prez" Bill is D.O.A.

Justin Rood | July 26, 2006, 12:44PM

Think Congress should sue the president? Yeah, maybe not this time, finds CQ today. Senate GOPers are putting the kibosh on Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's bill to allow Congress to do just that, in an effort to curb the White House's practice of using "signing statements" to dodge laws it doesn't like. (courtesy Raw Story.)

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

pauljustin | July 25, 2006, 8:33AM

Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
""We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor. Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action." (AP)

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

Paul Kiel | July 24, 2006, 1:34AM

ABA Faults Bush for Ignoring Parts of Bills
"The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives [Apparently, this is a higher tally than all previous presidents combined.]. These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said." (NYT)

More, from The Washington Post's write-up:

If the president has constitutional problems with a bill, the task force said, he should convey those concerns to Congress before it reaches his desk. The panel said signing statements should not be a substitute for vetoing bills the president considers unconstitutional.

"The President's constitutional duty is to enforce laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal," panel members wrote. "The Constitution is not what the President says it is."

The ABA recommends that Congress pass legislation permitting court review of the statements.

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

pauljustin | June 29, 2006, 8:15AM

DeLay: Did Somebody Say This Was the Blue Room?
Ah, the freedom that comes from leaving elected office.

A few weeks after departing the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay served as charity auctioneer at a fundraiser for Safari Club International, a gun-lobby group defending man's right to defend himself against unarmed animals.

“Who wants a beaver?” DeLay asked the crowd, hawking a sheared-beaver vest that a lobbyist later won for $1,400.

"Hoots," reports Roll Call's Mary Ann Akers, "and hollers followed." Probably because the crowd of hunters, hunter-lovers, and those who make their living kissing up to hunter-loving lawmakers understood that "beaver" is a slang term for vagina -- although, who knows, maybe they were super-excited about the flat-tailed, dam-building rodents.

“Everybody likes beaver, even women,” DeLay declared happily, with a passion he once reserved for attacking "liberals." “The best thing about it, it’s a shaved beaver!" he exclaimed -- blissfully ignorant, it would seem, of the disturbing psychosexual inference that prepubescence is somehow erotic in a female partner.

Akers noted that observers thought DeLay "looked happier and more relaxed than ever." I think that's six-beers drunk, according to our Washington Journalist decoder rings. ("Unusually gregarious" is three beers, "chatty" is two. Any lawmaker's behavior past "Happier and more relaxed than ever" usually involves falling down in a gutter, visiting a house of ill repute or throwing up, and you're not supposed to report that.)

But his vagina jokes weren't used up! He used the occasion to insult either the female genitalia or the wildlife of North Carolina:

At one point, as the bidding went up, DeLay pointed in the crowd to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) as he held up the fur vest and said, “Sen. Burr, they don’t have beaver like this down in North Carolina.”

Ah, well played, Mr. DeLay. Your rapier wit will be missed. Why didn't you ever show up "happy and relaxed" for debates on the House floor? It would have done wonders for C-Span's ratings.

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

pauljustin | June 22, 2006, 8:55AM

Convicted Former White House Official Steps Up Fundraising Efforts
Days after a jury found him guilty on four felony counts, David Safavian sent a mass email to friends and supporters. He described himself as "numb — sort of an emotional paralysis," according to Roll Call, which obtained a copy of the note.

But he fought through that paralysis to write his pitch: I'm hanging in there, my family is great, and by the way I'm starting a legal defense fund. He went with a very soft appeal, leading with several paragraphs about the support he's received from his family and friends, a bit about his daughter, a couple grafs on his legal options. . . and finally, the ask:

What do I do now? I know I need to work on the legal defense fund, and am thinking about whether there is a story to tell here. But beyond that, I’m not quite sure. I’m praying for clarity and strength as Jennifer and I begin this next phase of our life together.

Please keep us in your thoughts and prayers. And thank you for what you have done so far. I’m truly grateful.

David

Keep those cards and letters coming, folks. (Roll Call)

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

pauljustin | May 30, 2006, 8:20AM

House Leaders Face Down Dissent in Ranks over Jefferson Raid
More signs of a spreading breakdown of order in the House: leaders are losing face, big time. House Republicans are publicly grumbling about Speaker Dennis Hastert's (IL) opposition to the FBI raid of cold-storage expert Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) office. He's made the party look like it's protecting its own rear, not the Constitution, some say. Meanwhile, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has reportedly been forced to swallow a squishy compromise with the Congressional Black Caucus -- she will refrain from calling on Jefferson to resign his Ways and Means committee seat, and the CBC will stop criticizing her for attacking one of its members. (Roll Call, Roll Call)

Read more »