The history of “Signing Statements” goes like this: sparingly used and clinging pretty well to the  narrow purpose of administrative functions from President Monroe up to President Reagan.  President Reagan than upped the ante, issued an unprecedented 250 of them, using them for challenges of the law being signed.  The new standard set, Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton followed suit — 228 signing statements for Bush, 381 statements for Clinton.

President George W Bush increased the purview once more, who [used] statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

Things to follow with Obama on Administration: how far will his use receed from Bush’s — back to the post Reagan era level, back to the post-Monroe era level, or will he go right along with the expanded powers spotted by Bush?  Check in time.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letterto Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” they wrote. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations.

The administration protested that it planned to carry out the provisions anyway and that its statement merely expressed a general principle. But Congress was not mollified. On July 9, in a bipartisan rebuke, the House of Representatives voted 429 to 2 to ban officials from using federal money to disobey the restrictions. And in their July 21 letter, Mr. Frank and Mr. Obey — the chairmen of the Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee — asked Mr. Obama to stop issuing such signing statements, warning that Congress might not approve more money for the banking organizations unless he agreed.

Gut check, when all is said and done:  Somewhere between Clinton and Bush.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 14th, 2009 at 1:34 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.