Signing Statements Are Still a Problem

On January 28th, President Bush Signed H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into Law. He also issued this signing statement:

"Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

That's the entire text. At the time Think Progress reported on this and explained that Congressional Quarterly said: "One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq’s oil money."

"Legal professionals testified [last] week before Congress that there might be some practical concerns with the signing statement issued by President Bush on the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill. The president's objections to certain provisions leave some in doubt about whether he will follow the letter of the law."

The GAO reported that in 9 out of 30 cases, "agencies did not implement provisions the president has objected to in signing statements." They didn't make a direct link between the signing statements and the agencies actions but Bush is the clear one.

"In this particular signing statement, it's difficult to know exactly what the constitutional objections are," said Nicolas Rosenkranz, associate professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. No shit. Did I mention the above was the entire text of the signing statement? It was the House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee that had the hearing on March 11th and I wish they'd actually do something. Bush wouldn't even send someone from DOD or DOJ to testify at the hearing.

Now I read something about Backdoor Signing Statements.

"Newly enacted bipartisan legislation (S.2488 the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act or OPEN Government Act) calls for the creation and funding of an independent ombudsmen's office [the Office of Government and Information Services (OGIS)] to resolve disputes between the federal government and those requesting information via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)...The way it is now, the federal government can stonewall FOI requests and drag the process out indefinitely."

"The act was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and was signed by President Bush on Dec. 31, 2007. The newly enacted legislation calls for OGIS to be funded through the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)." The NARA is an independent agency which is what you want for an ombudsmen, however in the appendix of Bush's $3.1 trillion 2009 budget, he funds OGIS via the Department of Justice which you might know is getting a lot of FOIA requests lately.

So there wasn't an actual signing statement. The law says to fund OGIS via NARA but Bush wants to fund it via DOJ. Is that breaking the law? What's the penalty for breaking this law? Anything? What about the others?