President Obtuse

There are three things in common with the signing statements President Bush issues that challenges the constitutionality of the bill he signs into law in the last two years of his presidency: The first is how few challenges he has issued. This was a president that cranked out over 1100 challenges in his first six years in office. In his final two years, he has issued just 12! Second, he has dropped his complaint that a bill violates his ability to supervise the unitary executive branch, declaring now that they violate his ability to supervise the executive branch. And third, his challenges are so vague that it is impossible to keep an accurate account or to get a clear ideal of why he is objecting to the provision(s), or even what constitutional prerogative is being violated.

President Bush issued his 168th signing statement on September 30th (#169 came on October 1), and his 1,162nd constitutional objection. And true to form, I can only count the objection as one because it is simply impossible to ascertain just how many provisions are at hand.

President Bush signed a continuing resolution that funded defense and homeland security, as well as lifted the ban on drilling at the Outer Continental Shelf, though he noted his disappointment that this was a "long-term continuing resolution" and not an appropriation. In the last paragraph, President Bush writes:

Finally, this legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.

This is the mark of David Addington, by the way. Addington has inserted himself into the enrolled bill process, giving his office gatekeeping responsibility over legislation that comes to the president's desk for signature. Addington has insisted on reviewing all legislation before the president sees it, and even the power to rescind compromises the White House makes with the Congress, no matter how much time and energy went into forging the agreement in the first place (the infamous signing statement to the Detainee Treatment Act on December 30, 2005 was the work of David Addington).

Addington has special glee frustrating anyone wishing to look over the shoulder of the White House, and after the signing statement became a public controversy in 2006, he has made the constitutional signing statement more and more obtuse. And this particular signing statement is a classic example. The bill might be inconsistent with Constitutional responsibilities and to avoid this, these provisions will be construed in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.

Thanks for clearing that up.