The First 100 Hours

Ready, set ...:

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

Specific executive orders mentioned in the article:

• "Reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research...."
• "[L]ift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal...."
• "[R]everse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles."
• "[A]ddress the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement...."

The most important of these, I think, is the gag rule, because it has the most direct effect on the life or death of many poor women around the world.

A related issue I now wonder about: Bush's signing statements. These are published in the Federal Register but are mainly declarations of Presidential intent, not themselves sources of law for courts. Bush has used them as a platform to air his radical version of executive power, by declaring certain parts of various laws inapplicable to him. For those that amount to an unconstitutional line-item veto, I would guess the best way to address them is in additional executive orders, also published in the Federal Register.

Comments

[Aquagirl]

I don't know about the wisdom of undoing the signing statements. My view is they have no force or validity, and to withdraw those would legitimize them. Better to ignore them. If someone is going to rely on them in court, they're also going to argue that a later president can't "undo" a former president's restriction on the legislation.

[Mold]

Have to disagree. If the statements are left they can be used to set precedents if not contradicted. Each has to be quashed.

[Mithras]

Another thing Bush has fucked up: Now we have this hall of mirrors where signing statements are not law, but we don't want them around, but don't know what effect rescission would have. Jesus.

[Aquagirl]

I doubt the court would find them binding in any way. It's pretty basic law that you start with the language of the statute, and only move on to legislative history if the language is not clear. Signing statements couldn't be any more than legislative history (less, actually). If there was a decision giving them weight, they could all be squashed at that point, though again, I don't see how you can undo them. A later Congress can't undo the legislative history of a prior Congress. The fix would have to be to re-enact the laws in question with the new president signing them as is, and for Congress to write some sort of nonseverability provision into each law thereafter.

[cozmo]

His pen should be sure and swift on all four provisions mentioned, and others as well