Of course, it is just false to say it is Bush's policy to use signing statements to object to provisions of bills on constitutional grounds. As was noted by Walter Dellinger - the head of President Clinton's OLC: "[E]arlier Presidents did use signing statements to raise and address the legal or constitutional questions they believed were presented by the legislation they were signing. Examples of signing statements of this kind can be found as early as the Jackson and Tyler Administrations, and later Presidents, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, also engaged in the practice."

What the ABA fails to tell us is how Bush's signing statements differ from those used by Presidents Jackson, Tyler, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWBush and Clinton. Of course, that's because President Bush's signing statements DON'T differ from those used by all of those other Presidents. Bush has just used signing statements more often.

It ought to give fair-minded liberals pause that Walter Dellinger - one of the smartest liberal lawyers out there - wrote a memo defnding the use of signing statements for President Clinton.

There's some confusion about this, I think. What's offensive about Bush's signing statements isn't that he issued signing statements---I take it the president has every right to comment on what he takes the law to mean (and courts need not be bound by his understanding, of course) just as much as he has the right to comment on the new Snow Patrol album.

Rather it's the legal philosophy he's announced in those signing statements, notably the unitary-executive theory and other rather controversial notions.

So it's really what Bush said while signing these bills, not the mere fact that he said anything at all, that's troubling. Even further, if the president were to announce his intention not to obey a law he thought to be unconstitutional, that'd be perfectly fine... so long as he were correct and the law really were were unconstitutional. The problem with Bush is that he's been wrong.

What the ABA fails to tell us is how Bush's signing statements differ. . .that's because President Bush's signing statements DON'T differ from those used by all of those other Presidents. Bush has just used signing statements more often.

Well, there is a disparity in the frequency of their use. But there's also the fact that Bush is routinely grounding his signing statements in a theory of executive power which is in tension with—or in direct defiance of—established Separation of Powers doctrine.

Well, no, I think the problem is that if he really thinks a bill is unconstitutional, he shouldn't be signing it in the first place.

If you're President, and you view signing statements as a way of dealing with unconstitutional provisions of bills, you're an idiot. Even if it worked for the duration of your administration, the bill remains on the books whole, the unenforced provisions sitting there like a ticking time bomb waiting for a President who disagrees with you to be elected.

Care to explain how Bush's "theory of executive power" differs from every other President's? Maybe present an example?

What I'm saying is that Bush isn't just saying, "there are instances in which enforcing this law would be unconstitutional; in those instances, I will not."

He's also saying, "this law is invalid to the extent that it purports to limit presidential discretion." It's a much broader claim.

These aren't "budgetary circles". There's no reason to think that the problems with budgetary line item vetos apply in these cases.

So Matt what do you think about:

The ABA report's analysis of the signing statement issue and recommendations?

The viability of the recommendations to be implemented and if so the impact?