Your scary quote of the day
“It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn’t intend to enact the bill.” Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, testifying before a Senate pane on presidential signing statementsl, as quoted in the New York Times. Getting rid of the double negative, and this translates into, “the president often intends to ...
"It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn't intend to enact the bill."Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, testifying before a Senate pane on presidential signing statementsl, as quoted in the New York Times. Getting rid of the double negative, and this translates into, "the president often intends to enact the bill." Not always, but often. Which is great, but I always thought that when Congress passes a law -- no matter how stupid that law might be -- the president is always supposed to implement it. UPDATE: Obviously, the president can veto a bill. Signing a bill and only partially implementing it, however, is another kettle of fish entirely. To be fair, let's see how Boardman expands on her comments: Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the statements were "not an abuse of power." Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the current president is operating under a theory of executive branch power that is way, way out of the mainstream. I'm not opposed to signing statements in principle -- indeed, they probably serve as useful guidance for executive branch agencies. However, quotes like the one above give me hives. ANOTHER UPDATE: Thanks to Appalled Moderate for adding more context to Broadman's comments. YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Orin Kerr puts his finger on the larger problem: It seems to me that the Bush Administration?s approach to Article II powers has two features: (1) an unusually broad view of Article II powers and (2) a refusal to explain in detail the Administration?s broad view of Article II powers. Most criticism of the Administration?s approach has focused on (1). I?m no expert on these issues, but my sense is that, from a structural perspective, the real difficulty is the combination of (1) and (2).
“It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn’t intend to enact the bill.”
Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, testifying before a Senate pane on presidential signing statementsl, as quoted in the New York Times. Getting rid of the double negative, and this translates into, “the president often intends to enact the bill.” Not always, but often. Which is great, but I always thought that when Congress passes a law — no matter how stupid that law might be — the president is always supposed to implement it. UPDATE: Obviously, the president can veto a bill. Signing a bill and only partially implementing it, however, is another kettle of fish entirely. To be fair, let’s see how Boardman expands on her comments:
Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the statements were “not an abuse of power.” Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to “save” statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law “that could in some unknown future application” be declared unconstitutional.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the current president is operating under a theory of executive branch power that is way, way out of the mainstream. I’m not opposed to signing statements in principle — indeed, they probably serve as useful guidance for executive branch agencies. However, quotes like the one above give me hives. ANOTHER UPDATE: Thanks to Appalled Moderate for adding more context to Broadman’s comments. YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Orin Kerr puts his finger on the larger problem:
It seems to me that the Bush Administration?s approach to Article II powers has two features: (1) an unusually broad view of Article II powers and (2) a refusal to explain in detail the Administration?s broad view of Article II powers. Most criticism of the Administration?s approach has focused on (1). I?m no expert on these issues, but my sense is that, from a structural perspective, the real difficulty is the combination of (1) and (2).
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
