For once, a president doesn’t get to signing-statement his way out from under the rule of law:
The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.
House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.
The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.
They would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,” Obama said in the signing statement.
Senior Democrats and Republicans railed against the notion that the president could ignore a law they had passed and he had signed.
“We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of this democracy,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “There’s kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements.”
President George W. Bush had used signing statements to ignore a number of provisions in bills that he signed into law, frustrating Democrats in Congress. One Bush signing statement allowed the administration to ignore a provision banning the torture of terror detainees in situations threatening the nation’s security.
A few random thoughts:
- I am not clear on whether the substance of the amendment passed by Congress is a good thing. But the fact that Congress is not allowing the president to carry out executive fiat via signing statement is a good thing.
- That’s because there is no basis in the Constitution for the president to attempt to bypass the will of Congress via a signing statement. It was wrong when Bush did it. It’s wrong now.
- Interesting how Congress rediscovers the need to keep the executive in check once there’s a Democrat in the White House but couldn’t be bothered previously.
- A 429-2 vote is nice, but it means nothing if Congress isn’t prepared to follow up the pretty words with action. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know whether the appropriate action would be a lawsuit or holding the president in contempt of Congress or impeachment or what. But the chief executive takes an oath to uphold the law. When he violates the oath by evading the law, real-world consequences must ensue.
- Once again, kids: This is why you don’t let the executive branch do stuff the Constitution doesn’t allow. It may mean your guy finds it easier to do things you want him to do, but 1) your guy won’t be in there forever, and 2) whoever comes after him may go further than even you are comfortable with. Best to nip it in the bud.
