In 2008, Barack Obama promised that he would not use signing statements, but last night he released one to accompany his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
He said that signing statements are a presidential power grab, and made clear he believed it violated the Constitution.
Overnight, however, Obama released this signing statement, in an attempt to try to change the meaning of the defense bill Congress sent to him for his signature:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 2, 2013
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the "National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013." I have
approved this annual defense authorization legislation, as
I have in previous years, because it authorizes essential
support for service members and their families, renews vital
national security programs, and helps ensure that the
United States will continue to have the strongest military
in the world.
Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions
contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of
sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree
with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the President
the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by
one. I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as
a whole. In this case, though I continue to oppose certain
sections of the Act, the need to renew critical defense
authorities and funding was too great to ignore.
In a time when all public servants recognize the need to
eliminate wasteful or duplicative spending, various sections in
the Act limit the Defense Department's ability to direct scarce
resources towards the highest priorities for our national
security. For example, restrictions on the Defense Department's
ability to retire unneeded ships and aircraft will divert scarce
resources needed for readiness and result in future unfunded
liabilities. Additionally, the Department has endeavored to
constrain manpower costs by recommending prudent cost sharing
reforms in its health care programs. By failing to allow
some of these cost savings measures, the Congress may force
reductions in the overall size of our military forces.
Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,
as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of
conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of
Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not
permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good
order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of
conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to
continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian
service members; Section 533 will not alter that.
Several provisions in the bill also raise constitutional
concerns. Section 1025 places limits on the military's
authority to transfer third country nationals currently held at
the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. That facility is
located within the territory of a foreign sovereign in the midst
of an armed conflict. Decisions regarding the disposition of
detainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionally
been based upon the judgment of experienced military commanders
and national security professionals without unwarranted
interference by Members of Congress. Section 1025 threatens to
upend that tradition, and could interfere with my ability as
Commander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations about
the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of
hostilities. Under certain circumstances, the section could
violate constitutional separation of powers principles. If
Facebook
Twitter
