Presidential Signing Statement

Definition. When he signs a bill into a law, the President of the United States issues a written pronouncement.

Beginning in the 80s, it ceased being a mere press release. It became an instrument to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of an enactment that the president just signed into law. History. James Monroe was the first US president to use Signing Statements. Signing Statements were characteristically victorious in tone, oratorical and colorful political pronouncements, however ordinary and low-key in its publication. Before the 80s presidency of Ronald Reagan a total of only 75 Statements were issued.

Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bill Clinton, produced 247 Signing Statements among all three of them. George W. Bush had 505 constitutional challenges in 108 Signing Statements he issued from the start of his presidency towards the end of 2004. Of the 134 Signing Statements he made as of October 4, 2006, he had challenged 810 federal laws. In 1986 Justice Samuel A.

Alito, Staff Attorney of the Office Legal Counsel in the Reagan administration’s Department of Justice, wrote a Memorandum, noting the Signing Statements “increased the power of the Executive to shape the law.During the Clinton administration a Memorandum dated November 3, 1993 explained that if the President finds an unconstitutional provision the he may not enforce the enactment he just signed into law. Through the Statement, the President must inform Congress that he will not enforce the provision to avoid an unconstitutional condition. The President’s Signing Statement will contain the challenge to what he considers as an encroachment on his powers and his objection to enforce the enactment. This according to the Memo is a valid and reasonable as far as the president’s authority is concerned.

It was also noted by the same memorandum that Signing Statements were never reviewed by the courts before the time of Reagan and GHW Bush. Signing Statements are like Executive Orders that do not need congressional approval or oversight. How the Bush Administration use Signing Statements. President Bush had used Signing Statements the most number of times, over 750. They are (1) an attempt to render ineffective legal restrictions on his action. Many of his Signing Statements were (2) rejection of provisions which he finds as encroachments on his powers on national security, intelligence and law enforcement.

His administration is seen as (3) adding and enlarging the scope and character of Signing Statements. With 600 challenges as of January 2006, Bush regarded the laws as unconstitutional as far as he was concerned. While most presidents before him used the Signing Statements sparingly, Bush instead of using the President’s veto power (4) nullifies the law if they relate to the executive. This in effect also (5) strengthens the power of the Executive as it relates to Congress. The Statements also (6) serves as directives to the departments and agencies of the Executive on how to enforce the law.What Critics have to say.

The Statements of Bush (1) do not cite any legal basis and has to date not been interpreted by the courts. When President Bush flatly rejects a law citing presidential constitutional authority, (2) it is as good as having no such law signed at all. For laws that may have the slightest degree of going against presidential prerogatives, President Bush Statements (3) will consider the law as mere advisory, thus, making Congress mere advisors, as observed by Karl Rove.For Philip Cooper, an expert on Signing Statements, Bush’s Statements is (4) like rewriting the law based on his own interpretation. His Signing Statements are actually line-item vetoes, (5) which put him in a contradicting position to the Supreme Court. In Clinton v.

New York the Supreme Court had already ruled line-vetoes as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court holds that the President’s power is limited to “signing” or “vetoing” a bill and that he can not veto a bill in parts. Concerns over Bush’s Signing Statements.President Bush’s use of Signing Statements (1) gives the impression that he can ignore the law and he gets himself covered by his Signing Statements.

The potential threat that Bush may be facing is (2) the congressional backlash of his continued disregard of congressional lawmaking. The frequent use of Signing Statements (3) is a continuing challenge to the constitutional authority of Congress. President Bush will (4) will also be contradicting his own Justice Department whose job is to defend the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.If that would be the case, the President’s act (5) will be the one open to the question of constitutionality and his Justice Department will be put in a position of conflict of interest.

During his first term President Bush had issued 435 Signing Statements wherein “unitary executive appeared 95 times. The Unitary Executive doctrine comes from the theory of “departmentalism” or coordinate construction” that all three branches of government has the power to interpret the Constitution. The exercise to interpret the laws equally with the Judiciary is contrary to Judicial Supremacy.The actions of President Bush with the use of Signing Statements show his tendency (6) to work around the Unitary Executive doctrine based on the Coordinate Construction theory to overrule Congress and the Courts. Checks and Balance.

While there had been noted cases where Signing Statements were more directed on encroachment on presidential powers, there are also cases the Signing Statements were also to point out clear unconstitutional statutes which the President was unwilling to accept.The Executive challenged the Acts of Congress in: United States v. Lovett, citing unconstitutional a bill of attainder, and Simpkins v. Moses H.

Cone Memorial Hospital, to control federal funding for racially segregated hospital. Signing Statements is about encroachment of powers. The President is doing his own interpretation of a law and reneging on his duty to execute laws if he finds an act he is about to sign into law as unconstitutional. The Paine Principle that “the law is king” pales when President Bush ignores the law and the law cease to be king. Neither does it conform to his mandate as president and his being the land’s Chief Executive when he subverts the constitutionality of his own government.The Attorney General Walter Dillinger in a Memorandum to Barnard Nussbaum, counsel to the President re-stated and clarified the purpose of the Signing Statement, including its legal use.

He emphasized that in appropriate occasions they serve a legal usefulness. He cited that Signing Statements are; (1) for the President to explain to the public the effects of a bill’s adoption, (2) as a presidential directive to executive departments and agencies on how to interpret the law, (3) inform Congress and the public that there are provisions that he finds unconstitutional and would therefore not enforce the law.The same Memorandum provides an explanation on Signing Statements creating legislative history for which the courts are expected to give some weight to. Do I agree with Bush on his Signing Statements? Unless the functions of the Signing Statements are faithfully met, I believe that no president is justified to use the Signing Statements as a means to do his own review of the constitutionality of an enactment. Neither must he use the Statements to refuse to enforce a law which is the mandate and trust of his office.A president ought to share powers of governance with the two other co-equal branches of government, legislation to Congress and interpretation of the law to the Judiciary.

Neither must he question the constitutionality of Acts of Congress, as he must not set legislative precedents by using Statements instead of veto power. This constitutional government draws its strength from the separate powers of its three co-equal branches and not from a Unitary Executive who makes use of the Signing Statements to wield expanded powers.