Andrew Malcolm misses the point
March 10, 2009 9:32 am ET by Jamison Foser
LA Times reporter (and former Laura Bush press secretary) Andrew Malcolm:
President Obama today signed a document countermanding some documents signed by his predecessor and saying he won't sign so many other documents like that called signing documents.
...
Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush. But No. 42 is a Democrat and his wife currently works for Obama. So No. 44 is on a big tear right now to distance himself instead from No. 43, the Republican, who's back in Texas and doesn't care but just hearing his name trashed makes Democrats feel good.
Oh, really? That's why people have focused on Bush's signing statements? Or could it be that Bush's signing statements have been substantively different from Clinton's? Here's what a September 2007 Congressional Research Service report has to say:
At first glance, it does not appear that President Bush has departed significantly from prior practice in the signing statement context, having issued 152 signing statements as compared to 381 during the Clinton Administration. However, the qualitative difference in the Bush II approach becomes apparent when considering the number of individual challenges or objections to statutory provisions that are contained in these statements. Of President Bush’s 152 signing statements, 118 (78%) contain some type of constitutional challenge or objection, as compared to 70 (18%) during the Clinton Administration.37 Even more significant, however, is the fact that these 118 signing statements are typified by multiple constitutional and statutory objections, containing challenges to more than 1,000 distinct provisions of law.38
UPDATE: Steve Benen adds:
Did Clinton use signing statements "way more than George W. Bush"? It's a highly misleading claim, based on a count of the individual documents, instead of the number of provisions to which the signing statements have been applied. In reality, Bush "broke all records" while abusing this presidential tool, "using signing 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."
The Conclusion of the CRS Report has:
"...it appears that recent administrations, as made apparent by the voluminous challenges lodged by President George W. Bush, have employed these instruments [signing statements] in an attempt to leverage power and control away from Congress by establishing these broad assertions of authority as a Constitutional norm."
In describing George W. Bush's signing statements as "voluminous", the Conclusion mentioned no other President by name, except to say "such statements have become increasingly common since the Reagan administration": and if you like to read between the lines (as I do), then you might think that since George W. Bush was the only President mentioned in the Conclusion, and that immediately following that mention of his name, was attached the observation that Presidents "have employed these instruments [signing statements] in an attempt to leverage power and control away from Congress", you might think the entire Conclusion referred mostly to him, George W. Bush... you might even think the entire Report had been updated with Bush in mind: particularly seeing as it was written (updated) in September 2007, at about the seven year point of his Presidency.
As far as signing statements go in general, they are variously well thought out and even insightful, or just frivilous commentary on the Law being signed: they must be examined on their specifics, in order to be understood.
And a lot of them (especially under Reagan, for some reason) actually do identify where Congress has reached too far, and encroached unconstitutionally on Presidential authority (like trying to establish some part of the Executive branch to be under the direct authority of Congress, or worse yet, to establish some part of the Executive branch to come under the direct authority of State or local officials): and the Courts have sometimes agreed with the President, and found the particular provisions so identified by the President to be unconstitutional, and requiring a new Act amending them.
Anyway, not only do the signing statments themselves require examination (versus simply debating these statements in general), but also the particular President too, and whether or not we think him well intentioned and trustworthy, in the way he chooses to interpret the language of the statute: which is essentially what most signing statements are, an interpretation of the language in the Law just signed.
And we all believed George W. Bush to be a well intentioned sincere and trustworthy Public Servant, didn't we?
Yeah, right.
This idiot can't write any better than his boss's husband could speak...
George W. Bush. . .who's back in Texas and doesn't care but just hearing his name trashed makes Democrats feel good.
Oh boo-hoo-hoo! Those big meanies try to make little Georgie cry- but hahaha! Georgie doesn't ca-are, Georgie doesn't ca-are, nyah nyah na nah nah, nyah na nyah na nah nah!
Here's Malcolm's introduction:
"President Obama today signed a document countermanding some documents signed by his predecessor and saying he won't sign so many other documents like that called signing documents."
Now if one reads Obama's statement, it's clear, thoughtful and easily understandable (even to a Republican). But Malcolm has to write gibberish, then criticize the gibberish in order to knock Obama. Some people would be ashamed to act in such a manner, but Malcolm clearly is not.