Facing veto override on Russia sanctions, Trump's signing statement raises constitutional issues
CLOSE
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed a bill that imposes new sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. But he doesn’t seem happy about it.
Video provided by Newsy
Newslook
WASHINGTON — After signing a bill that greatly curtailed his ability to relax sanctions on Russia, President Trump issued two separate, simultaneous statements — one widely quoted and full of Trumpian bluster, the other dry and legalistic.
It’s that second, less-analyzed signing statement that will have the bigger impact on how the law that imposes stiff financial penalties on Moscow over its election meddling and military aggression in Ukraine is actually implemented.Â
Related:Â
In it, Trump raised a number of constitutional objections to Congress’s attempts to dictate his conduct of foreign policy — not just with Russia but also Iran and North Korea. While his press statement blasted Congress for being unable to pass a health care bill, negotiating bad deals, and encroaching on presidential power, the official signing statement was much more measured in its tone.
“This signing statement has very traditional arguments that probably would have come from any president,” said Ian Ostrander, a political scientist at Michigan State University. “It tends to be a different group of people who would write a press release. Those documents are meant for a different audience.”
Signing statements are written by lawyers, and their audience is usually a small group of Washington players: Members of Congress who write laws and conduct oversight, and the bureaucrats who enforce the law, and judges who may be called on to interpret the constitutionality of the law.
But in this case, there may be yet another audience: the world.
“What you see the president doing in this case is trying to maintain a powerful image in foreign affairs,” said Mark Rush, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.
In dealing with world leaders with broad executive powers — like Russian President Vladimir Putin — a U.S. president wants to be on an equal footing to negotiate, he said. “Especially a president of Trump’s persona wants to say, ‘Yes, I have this Congress to deal with, but I’m the boss.’ “
“I think this is just a bit of bluster,” said Rush.Â
Trump objected to certain sections of the sanctions bill, including:
â–º Provisions that Trump said would “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”
Trump cited a 2015 Supreme Court case, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, that said the president alone could decide whether Jerusalem was considered part of Israel.
But the sections Trump objected to were largely inconsequential or uncontroversial — stating, for example, that it’s the policy of the United States not to recognize Crimea as a part of Russia.Â
â–º The procedure for congressional review of administration attempts to relax or waive sanctions, which Trump said amount to an unconstitutional “legislative veto.”
Presidents of both parties have raised this objection to similar schemes since the Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto in INS v. Chadha in 1983.Â
“I nevertheless expect to honor the bill’s extended waiting periods to ensure that the Congress will have a full opportunity to avail itself of the bill’s review procedures,” Trump said.Â
â–º Initiatives to help eastern European countries to counter Russian influence, including a $250 million cybersecurity fund and a Ukrainian energy security program.
Those sections, Trump said, “purport to direct my subordinates in the executive branch to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives, in contravention of the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international negotiations.”Â
â–º Provisions that block certain sanctioned individuals from entering the United States, which Trump said make no exceptions for the president’s constitutional responsibility “receive Ambassadors and other public ministers.”
But even after objecting to what he called congressional “preferences,” Trump said he would give them “careful and respectful consideration” and “implement them in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.”
In the end, Trump had little choice but to adopt that more conciliatory tone. With veto-proof majorities in both houses, the White House had already signaled that Trump would sign it.Â
“I think by and large, the president was boxed in,” said Bryan Marshall, chair of the political science department at Miami University of Ohio.
“This gives the president a chance for some political rhetoric, but then having these constitutional objections could give him cover for discretion later in how he actually enforces this law.”
The top Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N,Y., said Trump’s signing statements “cast doubt on his commitment to enforcing” the bill. Engel said Congress will be watching.
“We passed this legislation along with a clear message for the White House: if you don’t hold Russia accountable, we will,” he said. “I hope Congress doesn’t need to invoke the review provisions written into this law, but if the President continues to cozy up to Russia, lawmakers won’t hesitate to act.”
Posted!
1 of 79
2 of 79
3 of 79
4 of 79
5 of 79
6 of 79
7 of 79
8 of 79
9 of 79
10 of 79
11 of 79
12 of 79
13 of 79
14 of 79
15 of 79
16 of 79
17 of 79
18 of 79
19 of 79
20 of 79
21 of 79
22 of 79
23 of 79
24 of 79
25 of 79
26 of 79
27 of 79
28 of 79
29 of 79
30 of 79
31 of 79
32 of 79
33 of 79
34 of 79
35 of 79
36 of 79
37 of 79
38 of 79
39 of 79
40 of 79
41 of 79
42 of 79
43 of 79
44 of 79
45 of 79
46 of 79
47 of 79
48 of 79
49 of 79
50 of 79
51 of 79
52 of 79
53 of 79
54 of 79
55 of 79
56 of 79
57 of 79
58 of 79
59 of 79
60 of 79
61 of 79
62 of 79
63 of 79
64 of 79
65 of 79
66 of 79
67 of 79
68 of 79
69 of 79
70 of 79
71 of 79
72 of 79
73 of 79
74 of 79
75 of 79
76 of 79
77 of 79
78 of 79
79 of 79
Â