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.
(Emphasis supplied.) Section 2262 provides that:
None of the funds made available by this division may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of the following positions:
(1) Director, White House Office of Health Reform.
(2) Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.
(3) Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy.
(4)White House Director of Urban Affairs.
The law does not prohibit the existence of these posts, just that the funds appropriate by the bill can't be used to pay them. The President apparently will construe the law in its plain language - that he can have this personnel but not pay them with the funds from the spending bill. Maybe he'll pay them with other available funds. Maybe he'll give them additional job titles that are permitted for payment and let them keep the other titles.
Maybe he'll just flout the law and pay them with funds from the spending bill. I doubt it.
As for what Obama said on the campaign trail about signing statements, well, if you are still believing campaign promises at this stage, there is little to be done for you.
The important question is will the President violate the law (even if it is unconstitutional)? Nothing I see in the signing statement intimates that intention.
Speaking for me only
