Presidential Signing Statements, and More from CRS
President Obama has used “signing statements” to take exception to provisions of law enacted by Congress with significantly less frequency than did President George W. Bush. He has also abandoned reference to the “unitary executive” concept that was favored by the Bush Administration.
In most other respects, however, the Obama Administration’s use of signing statements is consistent and continuous with recent past practice, according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. The report reviewed the basis for signing statements, their legal implications, and the controversy that has surrounded them. See Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications, January 4, 2012.
Some other new or newly updated CRS reports that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).
Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, January 23, 2012
“Who is a Veteran?” — Basic Eligibility for Veterans’ Benefits, January 23, 2012
Federal Aid to Roads and Highways Since the 18th Century: A Legislative History, January 6, 2012
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, January 6, 2012
Iran Sanctions, January 6, 2012
At a period where the federal government is undergoing significant changes in how it hires, buys, collects and organizes data, and delivers, deeper exploration of trust in these facets as worthwhile.
Moving postsecondary education data collection to the states is the best way to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education can meet its legislative mandates in an era of constrained federal resources.
Supporting children’s development through health, nutrition, education, and protection programs helps the U.S. achieve its national security and economic interests, including the Administration’s priorities to make America “safer, stronger, and more prosperous.”
To strengthen federal–state alignment, upcoming AI initiatives should include three practical measures: readiness assessments before fund distribution, outcomes-based contracting tied to student progress, and tiered implementation support reflecting district capacity.