Barack Obama campaigned for president of the United States on a promise of fidelity to the Constitution and stated that he would not issue any signing statements to revise legislative intent. His vision of the presidency stood in marked contrast to President George W. Bush's actions and seemed to suggest a reversal of the trend toward increased executive powers. We will analyze how and why President Obama has largely continued the unilateral presidential action of his predecessor, despite earlier promises to the contrary, outline why signing statements are not useful governing tools, and offer a solution to abuses of constitutional signing statements that impact appropriations.
"The Decider" Returns?In a January 2013 signing statement, President Barack Obama stated that his constitutional powers as president limited him to signing or vetoing a law outright and that he lacked the authority to reject legislative provisions "one by one." Yet he then proceeded in a nearly 1,200 word statement to pick the law apart, section by section, and to effectively challenge many provisions by declaring that they violated his constitutional powers as commander in chief.
President George W. Bush has frequently urged the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty and vote on his nominations to the federal courts. The administration argues that the Senate must hold up‐or‐down floor votes on all judicial nominees. Senate Democrats counter that the president is trying to short‐circuit the procedural steps of the confirmation process. Currently, both sides are waging an ideological and institutional battle over the judicial confirmation process. This article analyzes the claim that the Senate must vote on all of the president's judicial nominees, and concludes that there is no basis for requiring that the Senate must hold mandatory confirmation votes for lower‐court nominees. By tradition, the Senate generally takes floor votes for nominations to the Supreme Court.
The unitary executive theory first went mainstream during the George W. Bush administration as the president's justification for exercising broad executive powers. Barack Obama did not explicitly embrace the unitary executive theory, but he followed in Bush's footsteps by expanding and augmenting presidential power in new and questionable ways. President Donald J. Trump's campaign rhetoric, coupled with an early, controversial executive order on immigration, suggest the possibility of continued expansions of executive power. Thus, the time is right to examine the unitary executive theory anew. Here, we define the theory as understood by its advocates and then offer a critique. Finally, we highlight the theory's impact on the evolution of presidential powers over the past 16 years and set the stage for evaluating what may come next.
In his April 15, 2011, signing statement President Barack Obama implied that, as president, he may suspend laws, or portions of laws, and that he is not controlled by statutory language that interferes with his ability to receive advice from White House aides or other executive branch officials. This article analyzes the claim that presidents have the prerogative to wall themselves and their aides off from statutory direction and controls, and concludes that there is no constitutional or legal basis for such an understanding of the executive power.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.