TRUMP AND A CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED “SIGNING STATEMENTS”: ANOTHER REASON FOR VOTING

In the American system, Congress passes laws,  the president signs and carries them out, and the courts interpret them or

determine if they’re constitutional, right?  It turns out it’s not quite that simple. Thanks to signing statements, presidents may put their thumbs on the scale and say more about what a law means, in practice, than does Congress.

 

President Trump exerted that kind of presidential primacy in connection with a key portion of the $2.2 trillion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the nation through the current coronavirus pandemic. Congress

passed that legislation March 27 and Trump signed it the same day. Hours later he released a signing statement indicating he doesn’t intend on complying with all the provisions of the law that would assure transparency in the $500 billion part of the legislation aimed at helping corporations. So, what’s a signing statement and can Trump do what he said he’d do?

A Tradition from Nowhere

Signing statements express a president’s view of the constitutionality of specific legislation or how his interpretation of the legislation will guide enforcement of it or its

anticipated impact. They date back to James Monroe’s presidency. Ronald Reagan rapidly expanded its use in the 1980s. The Gipper issued 250 of them. In only one term, his successor, George H.W. Bush, issued 228. Bill Clinton

issued 381 during his eight years in the White House, Barack Obama 37. Historians now regard George W. Bush as the king of signing statements. Though he issued only 161 separate signing statements, he used them in challenging over 1000 provisions of various laws. The great classicist and historian Garry Wills once told an audience the younger Bush challenged more provisions of laws through signing statements than all his predecessors combined.

 

Despite this history, the federal constitution does not include a signing statement provision. They’ve just sort of become part of the legislative process. Members of Congress and others have challenged the actions presidents have taken through signing statements. Such challenges assert the president acted in a way at odds with the intent of Congress in passing the law at issue. The challenges have a mixed record, with the outcome of the cases turning on whether the court concluded the president did or did not enforce the law as Congress intended. Courts have not, however, declared the practice of issuing and using signing statements unconstitutional. 

  

Trump and the Stimulus Legislation

Trump said his administration wouldn’t treat the stimulus legislation as permitting the inspector general provided for in the bill (also known as  the SIGPR) to issue reports to Congress without his approval. In other words, the special inspector general couldn’t give Congress potentially damaging information about how the $500 billion corporate relief part of the package is being

spent unless Trump personally approved. Congressional Democrats and watchdog groups fear much of the $500 billion will get used by corporations for things like stock buybacks and executive bonus payments, not worker salaries as Congress intended.

Trump’s signing statement flies in the face of

the transparency congressional Democrats, in particular, fought for in passing the bill. Many in Congress don’t trust that Trump and his Treasury

Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, will make sure the money benefits workers, not corporate executives as occurred with TARP money during the Great Recession of 2008.

               

Certainly, presidents have used signing statements for reasons that don’t suggest evil. These include telling the public what the president expects as a likely effect of the legislation or guiding subordinates in carrying out the legislative purpose. Presidents have also used signing statements in advising the public he views some part of the bill as unconstitutional and expects a court challenge. Trump, however, suggested none of these things in his statement. He just made clear the public will find out only what he wants it to find out about the $500 billion. 

     

What to Do

When someone with dishonest motives occupies the White House, the temptation

arises to say that the courts or Congress or someone should get rid of signing statements. After all, they have no textual foundation in the constitution and Congress has never enacted a statue providing for them. 

History, though, shows that presidents in both parties use them, perhaps for good reason.

Signing statements may, under certain circumstances, function as part of our system of checks and balances. Congress, for example, could go off the deep end with ill-advised legislation a president prefers not vetoing because it contains provisions

addressing a serious national need. A signing statement, and subsequent presidential action, limiting the negative impact of the bad parts of the legislation may represent the best course for the country. Perhaps signing statements aren’t all bad.  We believe the country can take some

comfort in knowing that the courts remain the final arbiter of any action the president takes pursuant to the execution of any signing statement.

The presence of signing statements in our system illustrates the power of the presidency

and emphasizes the importance of getting right who occupies that office. In November the voters weigh in on who can issue signing statements the next four years. As we’ve said before, we can’t mess this up.  

                                      

 

    

SOCIAL DISTANCING: THE WAY WE ARE AND WILL BE FOR AWHILE

Millions of Americans find themselves under some kind of social distancing order. Many

cities and counties, and some states, have imposed shelter-in-place requirements as a way of fighting the coronavirus. Some political leaders and media pundits have cast the need for social

distancing in patriotic terms, invoking John F. Kennedy’s “…ask what you can do for your country” language as a way of inspiring compliance with social distancing orders or requests.

                  

                                                         JFK delivering inaugural speech, 1963

There is a lot going on in the world now and a lot we could talk about. Today, we explore social distancing and its current and future influence on life in America. How are people coping? What does this practice mean for the nation going forward?

We’re All Day-to-Day

Sports teams describe players with injuries that leave the player’s status uncertain as “day-to-day.” It means the player might or might not make the next practice or game. Whether he or she participates depends on

healing, rehab, pain toleration, the player's mental attitude, etc. Given the uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, many people are feeling day-to-day about life.

Much uncertainty exists about what contracting the disease means. A minor

irritation akin to the common cold? Severe illness and hospitalization resembling pneumonia? A death sentence? The answers depend on age, overall health, availability of medical care, and some unknowns. There’s a lot we don’t know about this disease, as the absence of a vaccine demonstrates.

               

That brings us to another problem. The United States lacks sufficient medical resources for fighting a massive outbreak in

which huge numbers of people require hospitalization. Health officials cry out for ventilators for patients and for masks and other protective gear for medical workers. Many people justifiably fear contaminated medical providers and equipment. 

          

                                          Ventilator & Protective Gear needed for Covid-19 care

Another thing creating uncertainty lies in the fact no one knows when this situation will improve. Projections of the duration run weeks, to months, to a year and a half, the earliest we’ve heard we might expect a vaccine.  In the meantime, we suffer loss of human contact, sports, and other things that make us whole. Neither men nor women live by adequately stocked grocery stores alone.

How long must we stay home, avoid friends and neighbors, forsake bars, restaurants, and other gathering places?  How long before we can give a friend or business colleague a firm handshake or big hug expressing our joy

at greeting them? How long before we see live sports played on television again? All three of us sorely miss March madness. Henry and Rob lament the absence of the Masters Golf Tournament this spring. Woodson faces withdrawal symptoms with no NBA playoffs in reasonable sight. 

              

The New Normal

After the September 11 attacks people asked when we’d get back to normal. The truth is

that it didn’t take long, but it never happened. Yes, by October we returned to work, flew again on airplanes, and shopped in stores, things people questioned if we’d do anytime soon after those bleak days in September 2001. Life got going again, but with big differences.

We put up with things – intrusive airport security, metal detectors, and bag searches

at sporting events, massive camera surveillance on public streets – we never thought we’d stand for. We accepted, in the form of the Patriot Act, censorship and other limits on civil liberties many of us abhor. We haven’t felt much of that law’s sting lately because we haven’t had another attack approaching the magnitude of September 11. Those provisions remain in place, however, and the government will trot them out in the event of another calamity. America usually lives with a “New Normal” after tragedies and the coronavirus will probably produce its own. Like what?  Start with economic dislocation.

Even if this ends before summer, the The United States will face significant economic problems going forward. Despite the stimulus package, some small businesses –and many

jobs – will disappear. Unemployment may remain high for months. Even industries getting federal help could have a rough time recovering.  Sooner or later, we must pay for the stimulus

funding. If we don’t, we’ll have limited growth for a long time or face significant inflation or both.

What about replenishing and restocking the

medical supplies being used up in this pandemic? Is this a warning about our health care system in general? We won’t debate Medicare-for-All v. some other approach here. But, doesn’t this crisis make clear we must tackle the entire health care issue with the objective of getting every American insured?

At a social level, how soon will Americans

feel comfortable attending sporting events, patronizing theaters, eating at restaurants, and showing up at other places where large crowds gather? Since many houses of worship coped with the virus crisis by putting services online, could that become the new way we do church in America? Could corporate worship services become obsolete and won’t this new approach affect church

giving? How about shopping? Will more and more of it happen online? Will brick and mortar stores become a thing of the past? What’s

the long-term impact on voting? Did the pandemic make a definitive case for voting by mail?  Will personalized political gatherings go extinct, since campaigning for office likely will change?

We are in uncharted territory. Americans are resilient, as demonstrated in past calamities. Everything in our history says we’ll bounce back. It will, however, take some time and some things may forever look different.