There's no journalist who understands the issue of presidential signing statements better than Charlie Savage, but his New York Times story today on Obama's use of the tactic almost feels premature. We learn that the president has "relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate," this has "riled" some congressional Democrats, and the American Bar Association's most recent president doesn't believe signing statements are an "appropriate practice." The problem is that while Bush's signing statements were all grounded in an absurd theory of presidential authority, Obama's have avoided mention of any such underlying theory.
The apology comes in that final statement: Bush's statements were all grounded in "an absurd theory of presidential authority" while Obama has not "mentioned" the theory once--the theory of course is the unitary executive. Actually, if you are worried about president's acting in accordance to the theory, then you want a President Bush who overtly defends aggressive actions via the unitary executive. As I have noted elsewhere, the unitary executive is alive and well inside the Executive Branch--having been placed there through careful use by Presidents Reagan, BushI, Clinton, and Bush II. The problem is that until the Bush II administration, it was subtle in the actions the presidents took. Presidents Reagan and Bush I referred to it on just a couple of occasions and President Clinton never did. But if you look at the actions these Presidents took, then it was easy to see the theory at play. The same is true for President Obama. There is really nothing in his actions to date to suggest that he is behaving any differently, and for good reason. The theory allows the president to accomplish things that cannot be accomplished working with others.
So before we breathe a sigh of relief or before we admonish others for being quick to jump to conclusions, we should look to the actions the president takes and match them with the tenets of the theory. You might be surprised.
