There are less than 150 Presidential Signing Statements under President Bush. I have counted them myself. I will include a LexisNexis screenshot shortly so that you don't have to take my word for it.

Clinton had over 350. I'll include that, too.

Everything you've been told about this is wrong.

we need to be precise about the distinction between the number of "signing statements" and the number of "laws challenged in signing statements" -- e.g., here .

The only contention that I have dealt with thus far is the contention of Senators Kennedy and Leahy (during the Alito hearings) and various bloggers (like Armando and Glenn Greenwald) who have claimed that Bush's practice is somehow new and unusual, and represents some kind of threat on that basis.

Look, every President has to interpret the law before he executes it. The fact that he announces this interpretation ahead of time does not therefore make it correct.

The 232 vs. 140 number - I have no idea whether it's correct or not, but let's suppose that it is. We are still left with the inescapable conclusion that the practice is neither new nor unusual, yes?

It's neither new nor unusual.

Doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons to be concerned about it, given the increased number of laws Bush is choosing to ignore now and argue about later (rather than veto), given the SC's apparent new-found interest in these statements, given the immediate relevance of these statements to those tasked with carrying out the legislation, and given that Clinton wasn't shy about increasing executive power himself, to the manifest concern at the time of the same conservatives who are so blithely dismissive of any criticism of Bush's overreach today.

Oh, and Clinton only ignored bad laws while Bush only ignores good ones, of course ;-)

The constituion should never be used for partisan purposes.  Its definition should be narrow.

Abortion foes will seize on your quote as an argument for overturning Roe.  What would a "narrow definition" mean, anyway?  The words themselves are deliberately broad and not self-defining.

Why is it that the ABA has issued it's report on Bush's actions?

Don't tell me that it has suddenly turned into a leftwing organization.

What is happening in the US these days is that civil liberties are being chipped away one small step at a time. This is the same procedure that Hitler used. Everything he did was according to law. And if a law stood in his way it got changed.

Just today a judge ruled that people could be held liable for receiving classified material even if they aren't the ones who obtained it. This is unprecedented.

Then the Gov. of Kentucky was declared above the law.

The secretary of state in Ohio declared the "sore loser" law doesn't apply to his former running mate.

Random bag searches in the NYC subway are declared legal. What ever happened to the fourth amendment and probable cause?

The funny thing is that those who support the necessity for curtailing civil liberties on the grounds of expediency frequently become the targets of prosecution themselves later on. Dictatorial governments don't want well informed followers, they want blind followers. Well informed followers might realize what is happening and change sides, this is too risky, which is why dictators frequently purge their earliest backers once they have consolidated their power.

consistancy is important is it not. and for g's sake don't bring the a word in here. the question is signing statements.

I just want the record to be clear about who's saying what.

I find the comment sections on Greenwald's blog are sometimes even more interesting than his posts.  I go there pretty regularly to lurk, now.

Since the source of your concern is apparently that Bush has used this power so very frequently, it seems relevant to compare it with modern precedent.

Pretending to clarify the separations of powers, when actually the meaning of feality to the oath of the constitution is being muddied.

I have examined each and every one of these Presidential Signing Statements, and I can tell you that by far the greatest plurality of objections raised have to do with two very cut-and-dried issues. I don't want to give away a future post, but basically, he objects every time legislation is passed which includes a provision for a Congressional committee veto. The Supreme Court has declared these provisions to be categorically unconstitutional in INS v. Chada, a precedent which has actually been expanded in subsequent precedent. Yet, Congress continues to pass statutes with legislative vetoes nonetheless. Most Presidents since INS v. Chadha was handed down have simply ignored them; Bush chooses instead to issue a protest in his Presidential Signing Statements.

The most frequent objection the President raises in these PSSs is that the legislation in question requires him to submit certain legislation to Congress, or to submit information in a particular form. Article II explicitly declares that it is the President's exclusive prerogative to submit to the Congress such legislation as he deems necessary and expedient, so again he's on pretty firm footing.

The constituion should never be used for partisan purposes. Its definition should be narrow.

I'm glad we are in agreement on this; if only we could use this understanding to undo several very long lines of precedent, I'd be very happy.

Why the fear of an actual declaration of war?

I'll leave it to your discretion to determine whether it's the President or Congress who is "afraid" of this.

1. I'm assuming that you missed the five statements from Clinton that I specifically gave full citations for wherein he claimed the authority to disregard a duly enacted statute that he had signed?

2. It's telling, once again, that you have commented upon this  post while apparently missing one of its more prominent features.

3. he unconstitutional provisions of a bill thingy is a red herring, argument-wise.  I don't recall the administration claiming any part of a bill passed by a Republican congress was unconstitutional.

Then in that case, you aren't paying attention, because that's exactly what the administration is claiming in every single case.

Has Congress pased a bill giving themselves command of the military?  Claiming to enforce a law "in accordance with my responsibilities as commander-in-chief" is NOT the same as claiming parts of a bill are unconstitutional.

The claim is that the laws in question unconstitutionally infringe upon the President's authority as commander-in-chief; or, more often, that "this provision, if construed as mandatory, would unconstitutionally interfere with the President's authority as commander-in-chief. Therefore, it will be construed as advisory/precatory."

Leon, you sound like you're claiming a bunch of Bush-hating boobs seized on his statements without regards to their content.  Bush is free to say that it's a nice day outside when he's signing a law.  If he muddies the water by declaring he'll interpret a torture ban "in accordance with my responsibilities as commander-in-chief", it's justifiable to ask whether he believes he has the constitutional authority to let someone be tortured.  We say he doesn't.

No, that part comes later. What I'm claiming now is that what Bush is doing is par for the course for modern Presidents - contrary to the claims of the Bush-hating boobs.

Why is it that the ABA has issued it's report on Bush's actions?

Don't tell me that it has suddenly turned into a leftwing organization.

Why is it that I'm saying that you beat your wife?

Don't tell me that it's because I'm a liar who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

As for the rest of this post, it is so disconnected from anything I wrote in the post, I don't know how to respond.

More Clinton giving Congress the finger:

Statement on Signing the Assistance for International Malaria Control Act, 36 Week. Comp. 52 (" Because the work of the Commission may interfere with the constitutional authority vested in the President to conduct foreign affairs, the restrictions in section 405(b) are constitutionally problematic and I therefore construe these restrictions to be precatory only."

Statement on Signing the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act, Id. ("Section 1104 of this bill raises a constitutional concern insofar as it could be read to interfere with my constitutional authority to determine when and whether to recommend legislation to the Congress. I will therefore treat it as precatory.")

Statement on Signing the  Statement on Signing the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2001, Id. ("Several provisions of the Act also raise concerns under the Recommendations Clause. These provisions purport to require a Cabinet Secretary or other Administration official to make recommendations to Congress on changes in law. To the extent that those provisions would require Administration officials to provide Congress with policy recommendations or draft legislation, I direct these officials to treat any such requirements as precatory.")

Statement on Signing the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, 36 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1906 ("While I strongly support this legislation, certain provisions seem to direct the Administration on how to proceed in negotiations related to the development of the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund. Because these provisions appear to require the Administration to take certain positions in the international arena, they raise constitutional concerns. As such, I will treat them as precatory.")

Folks, this is the exact same language used in the Bush PSSs. I'll bet Bush's lawyers ripped it off.

at the end of your post.

None of which seem like a threat to constitutional democracy and none of which provide any sort of context so we can judge what the hell Clinton was objecting to.

For instance:

Statement on Signing Legislation To Reform the Financial System, 35 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2363. ("I therefore do not interpret the restrictions of section 332(b)(1) as binding and will regard any such lists of recommended candidates as advisory only."

What is it that Clinton was objecting to here? Was Congress trying to usurp the president's appointment powers? Who knows? Maybe Congress was going too far. Maybe Clinton was going too far. Hard to tell from that.

First, Bush doesn't get to do something just because Clinton or some other president did it and got away with it.

Secondly, I doubt it is constitutional for Congress to restrict the pool of people from whom the president can pick for a job -- unless, for instance, Congress requires that a candidate have certain job qualifications or experiences. It is obviously reasonable that Congress can say you have to have a law degree and pass the bar to be employed as a government attorney. But if Congress is trying to force the president to choose from a list of its own preferred candidates, then Clinton -- and Bush -- are correct to object.

Third, insomuch as a signing statement is a president's way of saying "this is bullshit," I don't have a problem with it. If the president thinks the authority of his office is being compromised by a power-hungry Congress, then he has an obligation to object. The problem comes in what happens after that, which is basically nothing.

These conflicts between Congress and the president have always occurred. What is relatively new is the idea of putting these objections into a formal statement, hoping it will be acquire some sort of de facto force of law in the absence of a Supreme Court ruling -- in the same way that state attorney general opinions often become de facto law in the absence of legislative or judicial attention to an issue.

But what is really needed is more judicial review of these conflicts.

Oh, I'm going to respond to the report, never you worry - I just found it hilarious that someone would demand a response to an obejction, and then a priori disqualify me from raising a particular response (particularly when, in this case, it's a very reasonable one).

Frequency is not my main concern

skirting the implied intent, re: the torture ammendement is the clearest example I can offer. Torture is banned except when I say it isn't.

Congressional committe veto's I am unfamiliar with. It sounds muddy.

You get to the heart of the matter with Article ll.

  Pushing the envelope in the name of national security and fighting a global war on terror that will have no end.

IN laymans terms, a limitless war on terror and David Addingtons view of Article ll gives the executive greatly expanded powers.

  A limitless war on a tactic is alarming.  The definitions are all unclear. The definition of the enemy is obscure. The end of this war on a tactic seems impossible to envsion, so there will never be a "victory", a truce, or treaties for cessation. An abusive executive branch could hatch all kinds of mischief in these circumstances. There is no oversight or check on the executive.....!

Narrow definiton...... well I am not a lawyer, yet I feel there are compromises that could be made on this unmentionable issue that would satisfy both sides, that would include a narrow definition.

My sense is that the President does not want a declaration of war. It involves following international laws of war a place he doesn't want to go.

The ABA  group alarmed with this alleged constitutional abuse is made up of a very bipartisan group all in agreement. I an inclined to side with Bruce Fein and others whose judgement I value.

I fear the President has ulterior motives. Based on his actions and deeds, I do not feel secure putting my faith in his judgement.

I was illustrating the commenter's fallacy of making an allegation, demanding a response, and then disqualifying the response he himself anticipates will be coming as a priori illegitimate. I did so in such a manner so that I would illustrate the problems such argumentation tactics could eventually create.

The Signing Statements are a legal nullity - they don't carry the force of law, and I'm absolutely unconcerned with them. As to whether the issue raised within the signing statements is legitimate, that's to be determiend on a case-by-case basis.

For the record, I don't think that all of the objections Bush raises are legitimate. I'm sure I'd say the same about some of Clinton's if I went through them. But never did two lawyers agree on much.

The point is that the process of what the President is doing here is neither unusual nor alarming. In fact, Presidents have gone on record since at least 1860 refusing to enforce certain laws, or construing them out of existence to avoid "constitutional conflicts."

This long dairy explaining why you are so absolutely unconcerned says otherwise.

  On a case by case basis, it seems there are some areas where Bush may be in trouble, and I have a sense that it relates to his expanded Article ll powers.

  That Congress is considering a new and improved re-authorization of the war is telling.

  "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought.....{}.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
  Dwight D Eisenhower

Why everybody was laughing at me for the pretentiousness of my advice to you. I now share their humor. Your post is excellent, it has got to be related to a work product. That is way too much depth for a lawyer to do for free. :-)

I admire your willingness to state a position:

The point is that the process of what the President is doing here is neither unusual nor alarming. In fact, Presidents have gone on record since at least 1860 refusing to enforce certain laws, or construing them out of existence to avoid "constitutional conflicts.

I would add another point, by way of example and not by way of limitation.

Separation of Powers:

There are many different Separation of Powers issues. This is an easy one to understand. Among the many legitimate disagreements among the branches  about the location of the fences that separate their sometimes overlapping claims to legal turf is the controversy about PSS's. The detailed and arcane 'law' about who gets what kind of input on which kinds of essentially executive commissions is a good example. Congress is always trying to maximize their influence on the appointment process and vice versa.

Each branch has their own advantages in such turf-battles. The congress tends to pass laws that say "the fence goes here" and the presidents tend to issue PSS's that add the annotation: "like hell it does."

When the squabbling between the two gets too extreme, they will send it over the SCOTUS for Justice Kennedy to decide.

Wolf's point that this process is inevitable and unavoidable and unremarkable and could hardly have been outside of the contemplation of the framers is obviously correct. Failure to agree w/his above stated point can only make clear that you don't know what he is saying, or that you don't know much about the constitution.

And, if Tribe disagrees, then put it down to tribalism.

I must have skimmed over the Clinton citations.  Maybe the blockquotes threw off my reading pattern.  I did read the rest.  Apologies.

Still, they seem pretty innocuous.  I'm curious as to the one about handling foreign affairs.  Do you know what Clinton was refusing to enforce?

And the distinction still stands.  Clinton at least was specific.  Bush is claiming he will enforce laws "in accordance with his constitutional responsibilities", making himself the sole arbiter of what's constitutional.  He tries to escape responsibility for ignoring provisions by being deliberately vague about constitutional conflicts.  That's what I would do in his place if I knew the claims were indefensible.