Obama v. the Spending Power?

[Update: Yesterday, GG put forth a full blog post on this matter, which is getting some blog attention.

As I discuss below, I find it exaggerated or worse. I find the suck-up "you go boy" comments in response to his post annoying as well, going through about ten pages of them and finding like one person refuting him, and even there only as a matter of perspective. His reply that he many many times praised Obama is risible. It's b.s. -- a few praises don't override his general message that Obama is a same old same old hypocrite. It is especially ironic, given the below quote (a Q&A he cited repeatedly in the past), he thinks (unlike I) that there is a credible constitutional argument here. (More here [comments]. Still seems like a stretch.)

Since the objection is not "dubious," the offices aren't being funded and it is unclear how any legislation is being twisted, what the heck is the big problem here? Seriously. Get a clue. The statement, especially in hindsight given the offices in question aren't filled now (hard to find that out reading some of the criticisms -- seems sorta relevant), seems largely symbolic. If, and this law doesn't do it, advising him really is constitutionally blocked, he will resist it. A statement that sends a wink and a nod that mistreatment of prisoners isn't really a problem is one thing. What does this do?]

Glenn Greenwald joins with the usual suspects to flag the "brazen" signing statement that allegedly attempts to strip Congress (line item veto style) of its power of the purse. Let me say upfront that the video GG tweets about is different than the more nuanced official statement of the campaign where signing statements are okay, if done in a less open-ended fashion than Bush. To cite the Q&A cited in the article linked:

The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.

So, we are left to determine what this means in practice. What is an "implausible" objection? Is a "plausible" one allowable in this context? What does "change the meaning" mean in specific cases? Now, we can always take the approach cited by David Bernstein that it might be better if we take the Reagan/Bush approach of doing all of this secretly. Or, only when it involves funding terrorists or such. I'm more inclined to appreciate them doing it aboveboard and in a less blatant fashion. This does in various cases results in shades of gray. You know, like in the real world.

Anyway, though Jack Tapper flags the Q&A, we don't actually get a link to the signing statement or the actual legislation. This has been an issue in various cases. It is tedious. I have to search online for the legislation or the statement or the court opinion etc. when a simple link would be much easier. Maybe, now that the NYT is requiring payment for online visits over twenty a month (for some reason, I was given a free go of it for apparently this year, maybe given my long term account), it at least will always provide such linkage. It does seem to do so in many cases. It isn't too difficult.  Do I need personally to search a 451 page bill for the relevant section?  The same applies to the Affordable Care Act and the so-called "mandate."  It's tedious to have to actually find the relevant sections, making it easier to stereotype/misconstrue them. 

The statement:

Section 2262 of the Act would prohibit the use of funds for several positions that involve providing advice directly to the President. The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority. The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it.

Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President's ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President's ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.

The link is mine. The announcement also doesn't have a link to the legislation. Tedious business. Anyway, the section says certain funds (not sure if this means any funds) could not be used to fund a few positions that are colloquially known as "czars." Little things like this are the nitty-gritty of legislation and funding is a major way Congress can restrain executive power. Since the first President only had a handful of staff, it is clearly not an Art. II requirement that he be able to have whomever he wants and have them funded.  Putting aside the list of positions, the text of the section is thus:

SEC. 2262. None of the funds made available by this division may be used to pay the salaries and expenses for the following positions

I'm not sure what the signing statement purports to do.  He can obtain advice and supervise all he wants.  If he wants to actually pay the salaries of the named positions, well, yeah, that would be illicit.  Now, given everything else, I'm not going to be horrified at such a thing.  I can see how the overall principle could be very problematic -- the power of the purse is a major way to restrain executive overreach and even John Yoo admitted to that (easily done, since any actual attempts were open to veto).  But, the statement is vague, which yes, is annoying.

Still, I'm not sure where he said he will pay the people anyway, though if he doesn't use "the funds made available by this division," even that doesn't seem barred by the section involved.  I will readily admit that there is an implication that he is saying that, but without more, what exactly are we supposed to THAT upset about here?  If someone put this on the bottom of a much longer list, maybe, but even there, this seems of the variety where some false equivalency is sought out.  And, the fact that the measure apparently doesn't really do anything reaffirms that his statement could be taken as purely hortatory without any real effect. 

This is all much ado about not much.  It is however an easy target for Obama critics.  It's tiresome and somewhat lazy.  Like, Daniel Murphy made a stupid running mistake in a recent game, one that wound up not meaning anything since the next guy didn't get a hit.  The game had lots of stupid plays.  Murphy as a whole has been decent -- he has hit some, including in key situations and made some good plays in the field.  But, the one play is cited in a way that colors his overall play.  It is unfair and misleading.  The fact I read too much online stuff only makes it worse.

Obama has overreached in various cases.  This is at best a white lie type of thing, if that.

[Reading some of the back/forth between the GG tweets, there seems to be some understanding that Obama should be able to fill specific positions, but I'm not sure if this means they think Congress must fund specific "positions" such as some sub-cabinet position or even a whole department. That really makes no sense. Congress can defund positions. What is the constitutional controversy there?!]