Obama instructs his administration not to rely on Bush’s signing statements.

[ProSense]

Obama instructs his administration not to rely on Bush’s signing statements.

The New York Times’ Charlie Savage writes that President Obama has instructed his administration not to rely on any of Bush’s signing statements, calling into question their legitimacy:

In his directive, Mr. Obama said that any signing statement issued before his presidency should be viewed with doubt, placing an asterisk beside all of those issued by Mr. Bush and other former presidents.

“To ensure that all signing statements previously issue are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, and provision of a statute,” he wrote.

Obama said he will employ the use of signing statements sparingly, doing so when “Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional.” Savage notes that Obama’s new directive is “consistent with what he said during the 2008 presidential campaign.”

[sampsonblk]

1. The rule of law has returned

And not a moment too soon.

[LiberalFighter]

3. He should follow the rule of law completely. Signing statements are not valid PERIOD.

[MadMaddie]

4. Actually that's not true

Signing statements were used sparingly...* used signing statments on steroids. As usual he screwed up a process that actually worked when used rarely.

<snip>
Several sources trace “signing statements” back to James Monroe Interesting early statements that include discussions about presidential doubt about legislation and the issue of how the president should proceed are found from Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Ulysses Grant. A brief overview can be found in the ABA Task Force cited below.

Monroe’s messages did not look like what are today considered “signing statement.” Rather he informed Congress in a message January 17, 1822, that he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66281
<snip>

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

[treestar]

6. There's nothing wrong with signing statements themselves if used properly

When a law is passed, that is not the end of it. Regulations have to be issued. The Executive Branch has to enforce the law, and may take up positions with which litigants may disagree. The litigant takes it to court and the court clears up with ambiguity.

[frogcycle]

2. Obama should issue a signing statement on the omnibus spending bill

stripping it of every "earmark." I was going to suggest just the republican-sponsored ones, but that would be partisan.

Yes, I know that many of these are actually worthwhile projects - for example, one that was mocked on some news program last night was a few hundred k for horseshoe crab research. Sounds goofy, right? Well, horseshoe crabs have a unique characteristic in their blood; they are being collected in huge numbers, "donating" blood, then being returned to the sea.

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/lhurton/Research.htm

This preparation is called Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL). LAL is used to detect endotoxins associated with gram-negative bacteria. These pathogenic bacteria can illicit a pyrogenic response, which involves fever, coma, or even death. Hence, the LAL assay is used by pharmaceutical and medical industries to ensure that their products (e.g., intravenous drugs, vaccines, and implantable medical and dental devices) have no bacterial contamination. The lysate has been shown to be more sensitive and faster to the detection of endotoxin than the USP rabbit test. The United States FDA estimates that 260,000 horseshoe crabs were caught and bled in 1997, as compared to 130,000 in 1989. Currently, there is no LAL substitute that offers comparable speed and sensitivity.

Problem is, a whole lot of them don't survive. They may be threatened soon and the source of this extremely valuable substance could dry up. A few hundred k spent researching how to sustain them might be a damned good investment.

But never mind that. I say throw out the baby with the bath. Call the rabble's bluff. The worthwhile projects can get funded piecemeal. Obama can say he kept his promise, kissed the republicans asses again (the ones with earmarks in the bill will just have to hold their breath til they turn blue). He can invite them to a "slash and burn" party, where he kills each and every earmark - maybe Rahm could stab a knife into the table as he does it - and watch them blanch when theirs get the ax.

[tavalon]

5. Am I reading between the lines correctly?

It's okay to use President Obama's signing statements? Yikes. NO MORE SIGNING STATEMENTS!!!!!!