Statement on Signing the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
Issued 2011-01-07 by Barack Obama
Plain-English Overview
AI-generated summary explaining what this action does, who it affects, and why it matters
President Obama signed the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which provides funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, military construction, and national security-related energy programs. However, he issued a statement expressing strong objections to two specific provisions in the law. Section 1032 prevents the use of funds authorized by the Act to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States, and Section 1033 restricts the transfer of detainees to foreign countries unless certain conditions are met.
The President objected to these restrictions because he believes they interfere with executive branch authority to decide when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees and to conduct foreign policy regarding detainee transfers. He argued that prosecuting terrorists in federal court is an important tool for protecting national security and that requiring the executive branch to certify additional conditions would hinder negotiations with foreign countries about accepting detainees.
Despite these objections, President Obama signed the Act because of the importance of authorizing military funding for 2011. He stated that his administration would work with Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions and would oppose any attempts to extend or expand them in the future. The constitutional debate centers on whether such signing statements—where a president signs a law while announcing objections to parts of it—constitute a proper exercise of executive authority or an improper attempt to bypass Congress.
AI-generated summary for educational purposes
Constitutional Analysis
How this action fits (or doesn't) within Article II authority and existing law
This signing statement ("Statement on Signing the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011") was issued alongside a bill the President signed into law. The President's stated concerns: "the Nation and must be among the options available to us." Signing statements allow presidents to express constitutional or policy objections to specific provisions of legislation they have just signed. Their legal weight and constitutional propriety have been contested since the practice became common in the 1980s.
Critics — including the American Bar Association — argue that using signing statements to announce an intent to not enforce portions of a law effectively creates a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). Defenders argue presidents have a duty to identify constitutional concerns and that signing statements are a legitimate form of executive interpretation. The constitutional propriety depends on whether this specific statement announces non-enforcement or merely records the President's views.
Official Summary
Administration of Barack Obama, 2011 Statement on Signing the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 January 7, 2011 Today I have signed into law H.R. 6523, the "Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011." The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs. Section 1032 bars the use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2011 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States, and section 1033 bars the use of certain funds to transfer detainees to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met. Section 1032 represents a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. The prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation and must be among the options available to us. Any attempt to deprive the executive branch of that tool undermi