Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz: Careful Critics of Obama’s Bergdahl Swap

The 2016 contenders won’t box themselves in on the president’s use of the controversial “signing statement.”

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 16: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks after meeting with Republican senators regarding a bipartisan solution for the pending budget and debt limit impasse at the U.S. Capitol October 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. The Senate announced that it had reached a bipartisan deal on funding the federal government and the extending the nation's debt limit after 16 days of a government shutdown.
National Journal
Clara Ritger
Add to Briefcase
Clara Ritger
June 10, 2014, 2:53 p.m.

Re­pub­lic­ans are out­raged that Pres­id­ent Obama ig­nored U.S. law and re­leased Taliban sus­pects from Guantanamo without first no­ti­fy­ing Con­gress. This, even as the “sign­ing state­ment” that Obama at­tached to the law fore­told his in­ten­tion.

But guess whose pique is a little more nu­anced.

“There have been mul­tiple pres­id­ents who have used sign­ing state­ments for dif­fer­ent pur­poses, so it is wrong to speak of sign­ing state­ments in blanket terms,” said Sen. Ted Cruz as a pre­amble to his ro­bust cri­ti­cism of the pres­id­ent’s de­cision to swap Taliban sus­pects for Amer­ic­an pris­on­er of war Bowe Ber­g­dahl.

An­oth­er lead­ing 2016 pres­id­en­tial hope­ful, Marco Ru­bio, offered a bit of the same. He dodged the ques­tion of the sign­ing state­ment al­to­geth­er, im­ply­ing that pres­id­ents do in­deed have the au­thor­ity to do what’s ne­ces­sary to en­sure U.S. se­cur­ity.

“Most of these laws have a na­tion­al se­cur­ity waiver built in­to them,” he said. “The more im­port­ant is­sue here is not wheth­er Con­gress re­ceived a heads-up. The most im­port­ant is­sue is that five ex­tremely dan­ger­ous anti-Amer­ic­an ter­ror­ists have been re­leased, and I think a pre­ced­ent has been set.”

Many pres­id­ents have at­tached sign­ing state­ments to le­gis­la­tion, but their use as tools by the ex­ec­ut­ive branch to shape laws star­ted un­der the Re­agan ad­min­is­tra­tion, when then-law­yer, now-Su­preme Court Justice Samuel Alito is­sued a memo en­cour­aging the ex­pan­sion of ex­ec­ut­ive power through such state­ments.

Pres­id­ent George W. Bush is­sued more than 150 sign­ing state­ments that de­clared how he in­ten­ded to en­force the law, and he claimed con­sti­tu­tion­al au­thor­ity to make changes or dis­reg­ard parts of the law if ne­ces­sary, a con­tro­ver­sial prac­tice that promp­ted the Amer­ic­an Bar As­so­ci­ation to study its con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity and ul­ti­mately is­sue re­com­mend­a­tions against it.

Obama said dur­ing his first cam­paign for the White House that he would not use state­ments to nul­li­fy con­gres­sion­al in­struc­tions, and while he has is­sued re­l­at­ively few sign­ing state­ments com­pared with his pre­de­cessor, the one he is us­ing now to de­fend the Ber­g­dahl swap ap­pears to vi­ol­ate that cam­paign prom­ise.

There’s one Re­pub­lic­an on the 2016 lead­er board who hasn’t shied away from dir­ectly ad­dress­ing the use of sign­ing state­ments. That’s Rand Paul, of­ten the most vo­ci­fer­ous crit­ic of not only Obama but the ex­pan­sion of ex­ec­ut­ive power.

“I ob­jec­ted to Bush’s sign­ing state­ments, I ob­jec­ted to this pres­id­ent’s sign­ing state­ments,” he told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “That would be akin to the pres­id­ent le­gis­lat­ing. It’s un­equi­voc­ally un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.”

Elahe Izadii contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
2 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
2 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login