The Law: Prerogative Power and Executive Branch Czars: President Obama's Signing Statement

Abstract

On April 15, 2011, Barack Obama issued a controversial signing statement that effectively nullified a provision of a bill he had signed into law. Specifically, president abrogated section 2262 of budget compromise law, which prohibited using for salaries and expenses of czars of energy, health reform, auto recovery, and urban affairs (Obama 2011). defunding provision was part of a larger effort by Congress to prevent increased centralization and control of public policy by White House aides who are not confirmed by Senate. moniker czar is shorthand term used by media, politicians, and scholars to describe certain officials who are appointed by president to provide advice, coordinate policies among multiple departments and agencies, and even to make important personnel and spending decisions. Lacking senatorial confirmation and even prohibited many times from testifying, czars are a controversial feature of executive branch. Given substantial number of czars in Obama White House, Republican members of House had been trying to pass similar anti-czar measures for nearly two years before successfully adding anti-czar provision to budget bill (Fabian 2009; O'Brien 2011; Zimmermann 2009). Senate Republicans had also sought information about 18 positions in Obama administration that they considered czars and asked that president refrain from creating any new czar-type posts (Lerer 2009). Obama justified his plan to set aside anti-czar provision by stating that President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee executive branch, and to obtain in furtherance of this supervisory Continuing, Obama noted that he has the prerogative to obtain advice in fulfilling his from any official or employee within executive branch or White House. Legislative efforts that significantly impede President's ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain views of appropriate senior advisers, he claimed, violate separation of powers by undermining President's ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that laws be faithfully executed. result being that Obama would construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives (Obama 2011). Obama's signing statement set off a variety of criticisms, most notably from Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA), author of anti-czars provision of budget bill: The does not have option of choosing which laws he will follow and which he will ignore. He continued: The United States is not a kingdom run by a political dictator, and Obama needs to quickly reverse course and abide by law eliminating czars that were part of budget resolution agreed to be Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, and Obama himself (Scalise 2011). Some Democratic lawmakers, however, countered by saying that section 2262 was intrusive micromanagement of president's White House staff via appropriations (Bravender 2011). controversy over president's signing statement raises a significant constitutional question: is there a constitutional or any legal basis for presidents to claim that they have authority to shield themselves and their aides from statutory direction and controls? Obama believes so, and he went so far as to invoke concept of prerogative power as a defense of his action to void a provision of a bill he had signed into law. To answer constitutional question raised by Obama's action, this article describes concept of prerogative power and provides an assessment of whether presidents possess such authority. It poses question of whether presidents have ability to set aside laws after they have signed them. …