Obama Issues His First Signing Statement
The Obama administration has ordered a wide-ranging review of the signing statements that his predecessor frequently used to sidestep congressional edicts -- but that's not stopping the president from issuing one of his own.
After Obama signed the $410 spending bill that keeps the government funded until October, the White House released a statement outlining its take on the constitutionality of several of the bill's provisions.
Perhaps the most notable portion of the statement gives Obama room to reallocate money as he sees fit without abiding by the spending bill's requirement to first get approval from Congress:
Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory.Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
Late Update: A reader writes in to observe that the administration's signing statement has constitutional precedent to back it up. I'm in no way suggesting that it doesn't -- merely pointing out that while Obama attempts to undo Bush's past statements, he's clearly reserving the right to defend executive power when he sees fit.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
um...what?
how can you issue a review of the lastguy's signing statements, and then issue one of your own telling the SecTreas that he doesn't have to obey the law?
March 11, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presidents have been issuing signing statements since Jackson. Clinton did it on a regular basis for similar reasons and in a similar way--to say this provision looks unconstitutional, but here's how we're going to try to harmonize our duty to execute the law with our duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Bush's misfeasance wasn't using signing statements, but using them in job lots to declar perfectly constitutional legal provisions on the basis of nonexistent Constitutional superpowers that could be found nowhere other than in the feverish imagination of David Addington and the other denizens of Dick Cheney's little shop of fascist horrors.
March 11, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry but that excuse "everybody's done it" won't fly...if you have a problem with the bill veto it and change what you have the problem with. you don't get to select which parts you follow and which parts you dont.
it wasnt ok when bush did it. its not ok when obama does it.
March 11, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
freaktown, your call to veto instead of make signing statements sounds great, but unfortunately we've moved to a system were a lot of bills are not single-issue statements of law, but huge vasty complicated measures running to 1000s of pages.
To veto an omnibus spending authorization bill because of one provision that may violate the separation of powers is very problematic. For example, the government would shut down without this bill, or Congress would have to pass another continuing resolution.
The reason we have such huge messy bills, in turn, is that they allow the parties to mix 'must-have' goodies with provisions that everyone knows are necessary, but no one really wants to vote for because they will be unpopular with vocal groups of constituents.
Notice how the Republicans did this on this very bill: they loudly complained about how it was chock full of earmarks (a shocking 2% of the whole), and voted against it...but also stuck it full of their own earmarks, which they will happily trumpet at home.
Big messy bills allow everyone in Washington to speak out of both sides of their mouth, so the President is probably not going to be able to change that system. Given that reality, veto-or-swallow-whole is not a prudent set of alternatives.
March 11, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
sounds to me like all the more reason to veto it.
here's a question: why is congress knowingly passing un-constitutional provisions? and if they're unconstitutional, why do they need signing statements to "fix" them, why can't they just not pass something that's unconstitutional...
March 11, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on man. You're capable of exercising higher powers of reasoning than this.
You ask: "Why is congress knowingly passing un-constitutional provisions?" No one is "knowingly passing" unconstitutional provisions. The whole issue is that there is reasonable disagreement over what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. Congress is implicitly giving its view of things through the legislative process. The executive branch is charged with upholding the constitution, and it can and should follow its own process of constitutional interpretation. Likewise, the judiciary may way in separately in a dispute.
It is appropriate for the executive branch to exercise its role as co-equal branch of government and to interpret statutes within their legal and constitutional meaning. It's not always cut-and-dry. The problem with Bush/Cheney/Addington was not that they used signing statements, it's that they used them to enact a radically expansive view of executive power without any effective check.
In other words, Obama repudiated the abuse of signing statements, not signing statements themselves.
March 11, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
well the whole defense of this signing statement rested on the fact that it corrects unconstitutional provisions so its not really a big deal.
and while i appreciate you thinking i possess higher reasonign skills, i must admit theprocedural minutia of congress is not my strong suit.
either its constitutional or its not. if it is, then the president needs to obey it or veto the bill. if its not and it seems that agrees this signing statement's intent is to fix that, then the question remains: why did congress pass an unconstitutional provision?
March 11, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is where we part ways: "either its constitutional or its not."
It just isn't that simple. Granted, the dispute over the spending bill is relatively straightforward, but individual interpreters can come to divergent conclusions even when they are making good-faith efforts to narrowly interpret a statute.
Entire courses can be taught regarding constitutional interpretation in just one area. Attorneys and scholars can debate this stuff endlessly.
Moreover, I think the most important point is that this is by design. Our institutions tend to work best when people in positions of power take on adversarial roles and are forced to hash things out. It keeps them honest.
March 11, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To go one step further, something is determined to be "constitutional" only when the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it to be such, and only so long as that decision or the Constitution remains unmodified on that point. For every point that has been determined to be constitutional, there are countless others that that have not be tested or not resolved conclusively. Law is constantly evolving and being refined or changed.
Obama's use of signing statements follows reinstates their traditional use, which among other things puts Congress on notice of technical issues that might need to be corrected, outside of must-pass legislation.
March 11, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight.
When presented with a bill necessary to keep the government running for the rest of the fiscal year that contains minor provisions tangential to that purpose that everyone knows are unconstitutional but Congress refuses to admit because its still annoyed by a 27 year Supreme Court opinion, you think he has only two choices?
a) enforce a provision he knows to be unconstitutional, in clear violation of his sworn duty to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, or,
b) veto the bill, thereby shutting down the government at the very moment when the country is teetering on the brink of a depression and simultaneously provoking a constitutional crisis with a Congress controlled by his own party and creating a massive, all-consuming political imbroglio that would almost certainly derail his entire agenda?
March 11, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that's pretty much freaktown's (and Pat Buchanan's and other goper's) view on the situation. Funny how they get all idealistic when it is Obama doing something for the right reason, and the just slept through Bush's crime spree.
March 11, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
dont you dare equate me with pat buchannon or other bushies.
i'm not a troll...far from it.
i'm one of the presidents biggest supporters. it's a shame you cant criticize the president without being labeled a troll or a republican.
and i didn't sleep through anyones crimes...maybe before you start name calling you should know what your talking about first.
i didn't make this personal. i was asking a few legitimate questions about obama continuing bush's signing statements...
March 11, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freaktown,
Agreed -- the ad hominem attack is uncalled for here.
March 11, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when is pointing out a person's inconsistencies an ad hominem attack?
March 12, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
so he "preserves protects and defends the constitution" by telling his treasury secretary to ignore provisions in a law he just passed?
i'm sorry i don't see how thats any different than how bush would sign a bill into law and then issue a signing statement saying he wasn't bound by the law.
Obama is doing exactly that with his Geithner.
March 11, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Here's the "gray space":
Congress has the power of oversight of how money is allocated and spent as well as framing, forming, creating constitutional laws. The Secretary of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch and follows the orders of his direct-line boss, the president.
Congress can ask, and expect answers, from anybody in the executive branch about how they are using money that congress allocates to them, but they can't direct them as though they are their bosses.
To expect the treasury secretary to "accede to all requests" of anybody but the president jumps outside the chain of command — is a possible/probable breach of separation of powers. This signing statement just puts back the separation. If this non-executive branch board asks for Geithner to give hourly reports of all activities and contacts, he (or the president) can tell them to take a hike. If they request to see a line-item financial statement of the latest TARP disbursements, that makes constitutional sense and they can choose to "accede" to that particular request.
If Obama starts making a habit out of doling out signing statements I think we all have room to bit*h. Signing statements — just like earmarks (a whole other discussion) — are neither good nor bad things in themselves, but are standard procedural processes.
It's only abuse that makes them bad.
March 11, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main point of signing statements, which have been used for quite some time, is to advise Congress how the Executive will implement the legislation it passes. Thus, so long as good faith legal interpretations should be expressed at the time of signing, so that everyone is on the same page, no one is surprised later on, a administrative record is built, etc. The signing statement here is pretty simple:
The first limitation (no returning to Congressional committees for approval) is a simple statement of S.Ct. precedent (legislative vetoes like this were declared unconst. in the 80s, despite the fact that Congress continues using them all the time).
The second limitation (giving Congress power to make future non-statutory guidelines regulating the Exec.) is justified as it's relatively noncontroversial at this point that such Congressional provisions are unconstitutional (see, for instance, see NY v. US where the line-item veto was struck down).
Finally, the third limitation points out a pretty obvious flaw in the Congress's language: the Legislative branch can't force members of the Executive branch to act in the absence of legislation; if Congress (or the Board of Trustees) wants to give a BINDING order to the Treasury Sec, they would have to pass a new law stating it.
These three points in the signing statement are all relatively straightforward and uncontroversial Administrative law points that Congress fully understood when they passed the law. Perhaps Obama didn't have to point them out, but there's certainly nothing wrong with doing so. Bush's signing statements, on the other hand, took rather radical legal positions that no one could have anticipated (for instance, after signing the torture law, stating that the entire law was non-binding based on a unitary executive theory). Obama is smart to engage in a review of these statements, since it is probably wise to get some of the radical ones off the books.
Bottom line: it's not signing statements that are the problem--it's the use of signing statements to make outrageous claims of law.
March 11, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I jumped in line in front of you before reading your post — where we say basically the same things. AGREED. Bush putting out 1200 signing statements (things like, "you say we can't torture but we're going to anyway") was wa-a-a-a-y far and away abusing the procedural tool of the signing statement.
What I see above makes as much sense as in court cases where a lawyer objects to a judge's ruling for the record even where the judge over-rules the objection. It's a method of highlighting disagreements should push come to shove and appeals to the judicial branch need to happen.
And you don't stop every trial because objections to rulings are raised, just like we don't want the government to grind to a halt because there's some flawed language in this bill. Baby, meet bathwater.
If this one had to be appealed to the USSC, Obama would probably win. In every case where Bush the Lesser's challenges went to the supremes, he lost. It's not the tool that's used, it's how it's used and the skill of the mechanic that wields it.
March 11, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elena,
I know its more seemingly contradictoryand therefore snarky and sexy, your way, but there's pretty huge difference between a "requirement to first get approval from Congress" and a requirement to get approval from a congressional committee. The former would, in most cases--and probably in all cases involving spending--be a constituionally permissable provision. The latter is a blatantly unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to less than a majority of the whole branch.
I've checked my U.S. Constitution app on my IPhone and I'm not finding any power to delegate legislative authority to a committee anywhere in Article I. I'm unsurprised. It would be like the President saying he had the power to delegate the authority to sign bills into law or issue vetos to a deputy cabinet secretary.
March 11, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are exactly correct, fka Steve, and good reporting would clearly delineate this crucial difference. Likewise, with respect to a Board of Trustees containing Congresssional representatives--if a Board has statutorily-mandated rights, then the Secretary must comply; if it does not, the mere fact that the Board is populated with Congresspeople accords no special status or powers not otherwise existing.
March 11, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few relevant questions:
Have bills historically included requirements of approval by sub-committees? If it's been routine for 20+ years, it's odd for Obama to claim otherwise. In that case, it's constitutionality is somewhat 'grandfathered' in.
Also, if he goes and asks these sub-group of lawmakers for permission, how does that fit into any constitutional norms if it's not part of a law?
March 11, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've been continually used, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared this sort of thing unconstitutional 20+ years ago (Chadha v. INS, i think).
March 11, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info.
So basically, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court say it's unconstitutional, and Congress does it anyway. Joy.
Who would have jurisdiction to sue the Executive Branch?
March 11, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there'd only be a live case or controversy if the Executive actually fully complied with precise language and as a result somebody got injured as a direct result. Even then, it'd be really hard to manufacture a good case. But, nonetheless, I'll give it a shot:
In the example of the congressional committee creating rules on "implementing security improvements to buildings"--if the executive fully complied and as a result of the committee guidelines had to breach some construction company's contract, it would be the company that could sue for breach of contract. As a defense to the contract action, the Executive might argue that its breach was legal, since the contract was voided by the statutory provision & congressional committee guidelines. The construction company could then respond by attacking the underlying statutory provision as an unconstitutional legislative veto. But of course the Exec probably wouldn't use the congressional guidelines as a defense, since it would know that would open the door to the attack on the statute. This also demonstrates why it's worthwhile to use a signing statement up front--so that there's no ambiguity about the role that any future congressional guidelines will play in Executive decision making.
March 11, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That "grandfathering" might otherwise have taken effect after 20 years, but if the executive has likewise been consistently objecting each time, they probably cancel each other out...
March 11, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it would have canceled out...but in this case the Judiciary ruled on the question and sided with the Executive. So the legislature can keep this stuff up as long as it wants...but the agencies aren't under any obligation to comply. The signing statement is a good first one for just that reason: it doesn't say anything that wouldn't already be true.
March 11, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right. A congressional committee does not have the constitutional authority to condition the spending or reallocation of funds on the stipulation of a committee in Congress. That would give the Committee the right, effectively, to rewrite legislation passed by a majority of Congress, i.e., to spend or reallocate money other than as originally provided by the majority.
This isn't an encroachment on executive prerogative so much as it is an usurpation of the legislative process by a subunit of the legislature, notwithstanding that the whole body approved the language.
March 11, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on the action Congress would have to take: if it's a joint resolution presented to the President, it would presumably be ok (no presentment clause problem). This is presumably why the provision for Congressional power to deny the second $350 billion in the Oct. bailout was ok--it needed both houses to go anywhere and would have been presented to the president.
March 11, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. And responding to comments upthread, the decades of institutional resistance by Congress to acknowledging INS v. Chadha was in itself a bad precedent that fueled the Bushies mania for signing statements based on the "Unitary Executive" theory.
March 11, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes, but there's a distinct difference between Congress saying A) "the man you supervise must take supervision from us" (jumping the chain of command) with Obama saying, "Well, no. I supervise him" and B) Congress saying "torture is illegal" and Bush saying "For you — but not for me!"
March 11, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that's being objected to in this signing statement appears to be a legislative veto. These were declared unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha. It seems to me that the problematic signing statements (the type of most concern under Bush 43) are those that attempt to invalidate sections of law that are actually declared constitutional or for which the constitutionality is not in any real doubt. So I'm not sure I see a huge problem here. I don't have an issue with the president saying, in effect, "my predecessor's use of singing statements was no good. now let me show you what a good one looks like," unless the new one shares the same defects.
March 11, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is interested in nuance. It makes very poor headlines.
March 11, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have an issue with the president saying, in effect, "my predecessor's use of singing statements was no good. now let me show you what a good one looks like," unless the new one shares the same defects
Agreed.
I'm not particularly thrilled with the option of signing statements, given the potential for abuse. However, the fact that Obama has now issued a signing statement doesn't surprise me, given that he said he wouldn't completely discard the option during the campaign. He said he was going to do this, now he's done it.
March 11, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way the issue about signing statements has been reported does suggest some hypocrisy on Obama's part.
The President must know that everything he does will be turned into a shallow oversimplification of the matter.
At the same time, he shouldn't present anything he does in that way just to score points with the right or the left.
For me, I guess the big difference with things like signing statements is that, given all the players right now, I instinctively trust Obama.
March 11, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, at the risk of being redundant, the reason Congress did ot notwithstanding INS v. Chadha is that it is just one more round in the the big three-way game of checks and balances bitchslapping that's been going on since Marbury v. Madison.
The Supreme Court ruled exactly this kind of delegation unconstitional in 1982. Still burrowed in to the institutional memory of Congress is a determination to be stubborn on the point because the choice is being childish or ceding authority to the Supreme Court to decide a power struggle it was having with the executive branch.
The Founders deliberately and systematically built this kind of tension into the government to keep one branch from getting too powerful--including the certainty of a branch engaging in empty posturing over chickenshit. (Unfortunately, I can't recall which one of the Federalist Papers referenced the likelihood of empty posturing over chickenshit right off the top of my head, but I'm sure it must be in there somewhere).
It's not a bug, its a feature.
March 11, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I can't recall which one of the Federalist Papers referenced the likelihood of empty posturing over chickenshit right off the top of my head, but I'm sure it must be in there somewhere"
+1
March 11, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could this signing statement be a back door to ignoring earmarks? With his own budget, Obama will have time to do the usual dance with Congress about earmarks, but this budget is already six months late. So an end-around that lets him reallocate earmark money could simply be a stopgap measure. "Let 'em eat cake," as it were.
March 11, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doubtful. Earmarks are passed with the full authority and approval of Congress.
March 11, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tradition says that fka steve is correct--meaning (paraphrasing) that this is just traditional posturing between Congress ("we write the laws, do as we say!") and the Executive ("sure, we'll respectfully keep you updated and listen to your concerns, but we don't HAVE to do what you say in regards to the post-legislative phase").
However, there is some historical precedent for what you're suggesting. The President has some discretion to refuse to enact some laws. The easy example is a law requiring enforcement: the S.Ct. has held that because of the executive's "prosecutorial discretion," it can't be forced to prosecute or enforce.
The harder example is the "policy impoundment," which is essentially a presidential refusal to spend funds, based usually on some other statute from which the President impliedly derives discretionary power (for instance: congress appropriates money to buy military helicoptors; but there's already a law that says the Sec. of Def. can make determinations that certain weapons are obsolete; thus the Sec. Def. can "impound" the money and not spend it on helicopters). This technique was big between WWII and the mid-1970s. Congress briefly reigned them in through oversight provisions like we saw in this budget bill, but then those got struck down by INS v. Chadha. Finally, when the line-item veto (which was designed to operate in a similar manner) was struck down in 1998, policy impoundments were arguably put on shaky grounds.
It'd be particularly difficult to use them for earmarks, since they're SO specific, and often involve simply giving money to someone (the Zoo, state project Y, etc). However, some earmarks might be "impoundable." For instance, money given to a federal agency to be spent, where the thing to spend it on is stupid and runs contrary to broader agency rules or statutes. Or money for a state infrastructure project that fell behind schedule and wasn't prepared to spend the money within the fiscal year. (This is where your point about the limited 6-month spending window would open up some options.)
That said, I doubt this is a fight they want to have this year. The $X billion worth of earmarks (which are usually for very "shovel-ready" projects) serve as basically a mini-increase to the Stimulus Bill, which one would think the Obama Admin would be pretty content with.
March 11, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the budget that he said he would go thru line by line and take out what does not work?
March 11, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reviewing a budget line-by-line involves careful analysis, something I expect of Obama and his staff. Taking out what doesn't work requires a line-item veto, which is something that would require Congress to authorize such a power and/or a Constitutional amendment.
When Obama says he's going to review budgets line-by-line he is speaking metaphorically. I suspect he means his staff will review proposed budgets and work with Congress as much as possible to resolve disagreements prior to final passage.
March 11, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. This is "last year's business"--a spending bill that should have been enacted by the end of October 2008, but Bush said he would veto it, so it's been waiting for a new president.
March 11, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama said he would go through every government operation line by line and cut out programs/departments that do not work. But I hardly think we should expect that in the midst of an economic crisis that Obama has had time yet to go through each department of the government line by line. I've never seen a president under such intense pressure so quickly. Geez, it's a four year term not a four month term.
March 11, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roger that Debra. He's graying faster than I am and I have him by a decade. The Urgency of Now is going to be a bit messier than any of us want, and nothing like he (and likely we) ever expected even six months ago.
I'm one of those non-believers (agnostic, actually) and I voted for O because of his obvious intelligence. I'm not praying to anything but that he can keep his head and that logic will prevail.
The only "divine intervention" I'm hoping for right now is that all those nattering, chattering MSM water carriers for the Right's message of delay and obstruction are struck dumb (meaning the non-speaking variety; most of them constantly prove possessing the colloquial quality of that word...).
Peace out.
March 11, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an outrage and a genuine display of naked arrogance on the part of the President. What massive hypocrisy!
The President and his people know there is absolutely no basis in law for "signing statements" of any kind. They have no legal effect, yet Obama retains one of the most obnoxious of Bush's power grabs for himself. Disgusting.
March 12, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
They have legal effect: they guide Executive Branch officials in their implementation of the law, they point out potential unconstitutional application of a law (because in most cases a law isn't constitutional until it's applied unconstitutionally), and they help create a trail of evidence suggesting the intent behind execution of the law, which can be very relevant to subsequent judicial review.
March 12, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get ahold of yourself man.
This isn't that complicated. Signing statements do not have the force of law. They simply indicate the position the Executive Branch is taking on various interpretive points of the law being passed. This statement is a perfect example; everything it says has already been established by the Judiciary. Even without the signing statement the agencies could safely ignore the bill's committee-veto provisions. This is in marked contrast to many of Bush's signing statements which were in direct contradiction to constitutional principle and court precedent. Several times the courts forced the Bush administration to comply despite signing statements to the contrary...because they don't have the force of law.
A signing statement is just a "heads-up" from the President about how legislation will be handled. It has no bearing on whether the handling described is legal.
March 12, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're way oversimplifying things (and looking at the notion of "legal effect" in far too narrow terms). Take this example:
A law is passed by Congress directing some mid-level bureaucrat to never hire gays. President pens a signing statement telling Congress that the mid-level bureaucrat will ignore the directive because it would violate Title VII and the 14th Amendment. The official goes ahead and engages in a discriminatory hiring policy, as directed by Congress.
At this point, can the President fire him? The general rule is only "for cause," and the cause cited by the President in this case would be disobeying an order of the President (contained within the signing statement). If this went to a court, the court would have to determine which directive he was supposed to have followed--congress's law, or the president's signing statement. And I strongly suspect virtually all courts would side w/the President on this one, thus giving the signing statement "legal effect." (note: regardless of which way a court went, the statements at least have "legal significance")
March 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, I totally agree w/your post and argument about the signing statements in this particular case... I just think it's worth pointing out that even non-outrageous run-of-the-mill signing statements have potential to be legally significant.
March 12, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo.
March 12, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for the discussion.
March 12, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink