Statement on Signing the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
Issued 2009-03-11 by Barack Obama
Plain-English Overview
AI-generated summary explaining what this action does, who it affects, and why it matters
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, which provided funding necessary for the smooth operation of the federal government. Along with signing the bill, the President issued a statement identifying several provisions in the law that he believed raised constitutional concerns, even though he was approving the overall legislation. The President stated that it is a legitimate constitutional function to indicate when a bill includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections.
The President's statement identified specific concerns with provisions related to foreign affairs, United Nations peacekeeping missions, communications between federal employees and Congress, and requirements for congressional committee approval of certain executive spending decisions. For example, he stated he would not treat certain provisions as limiting his ability to negotiate with foreign governments, and he indicated that spending decisions would not be treated as dependent on congressional committee approval, though his administration would notify and seriously consider recommendations from those committees.
This type of presidential statement has been debated since the 1980s, with critics arguing it effectively allows presidents to ignore parts of laws they've signed, while defenders argue presidents have a duty to identify constitutional concerns. The constitutional propriety of such statements remains contested, with disagreement over whether they constitute legitimate executive interpretation or an improper refusal to enforce duly enacted laws.
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 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009") was issued alongside a bill the President signed into law. 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 H. Obama, 2009 Statement on Signing the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 March 11, 2009 Today I have signed into law H.R. 1105, the "Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009." This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government. As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns. • Foreign Affairs . Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and ente