In the past, presidents have justified their use of the constitutional signing statement by referring to the practice of state governors use of constitutional signing statements, much the way presidents have referred to the power that governors have to use the line item veto as reasons to tamp down fears that this would give the president too much power over legislation. But what about other chief executives, such as big city mayors?
I have recently come across an interesting signing statement issued by the Mayor of Washington D.C., Adrian M. Fenty. DC's attorney general--Peter Nickles--has sent a memorandum to the city council citing 16 problematic sections of the 2010 city budget, six of which contain provisions that Nickels says will not be enforced. These six provisions seem mostly to violate separation of powers principles by allowing the council to exercise executive functions.
To be perfectly honest, I do not know much about local government and whether this is a new practice in DC or something that has been long standing. This story in one of Washington's alternative dailies, chock full of quotes from folks on the council, seem to suggest that this practice is new to the city. But what is interesting is just how instructive this challenge should be to the White House--particularly the Obama White House, which promised to be crystal clear in the challenges he issues to provisions of the law. In the Nickles memo, he details what section and subsection is a problem, what it is designed to do, and why it interferes with the prerogatives of the mayor.
