Signing Statements: The Last Word (I Think)

by hilzoy

Just a quick note to say that if you haven’t read the post on signing statements written by eight lawyers who used to work in the Office of Legal Counsel, you should. The basic argument is: there is no reason to think that a President should always (as opposed to: almost always) enforce laws whose constitutionality he doubts; there is no reason to think that he must veto any such bill (because of huge omnibus bills that might contain only a tiny bit of constitutionally questionable stuff which can be tested in court); and the problem with the Bush administration is not that they are issuing signing statements announcing that they will not enforce certain provisions of laws, it’s how they’re doing it, and how often. I found it quite convincing, though since I am not a lawyer, I am ready to be persuaded otherwise.

I’ve linked to the Georgetown Law version, as opposed to the TPMCafe version, both because it loads faster and because its comments contain this wonderful quote from Jefferson, about the Sedition Act:

“I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law, because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image; and that it was as much my duty to arrest its execution in every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worship the image.”

I really wish politicians could still write that well.