Signing Statements (Most likely a debate)

[Lanshark]

Thanks for all of the links. I had no idea this could happen. It does sound binding. Isn't this , in effect, a veto if you are not willing to abide by the legislation without certain exemptions or exceptions?

Why not just veto the bill? I am assuming that a veto makes news and these comments can be don't without a lot of publicity, until now.

The practice sounds like it has been going on for awhile but the current president is using it more than his predecessors.

Thanks for bringing this up.

 

[Lanshark]

Mal's Disclaimer:

No opinions made by, for or around Maleficent13, herein known as "Mal" will be held as legally in binding in any sense of the word, including the silk scarf sense of binding, which Mal can neither confirm nor deny knowing anything about. In addition, should any opinion made by Mal cause a reader to experience a life changing event, she will immediately claim all appropriate kudos; should any opinion of Mal's cause anger, annoyance, itching or rash, she disavows any knowledge of said opinion, the DIS boards, WDW, or the state of Oregon. Should you have any questions about the above disclaimer, please, keep them to yourself.

Lanshark's presidential signing statement: Poohockey

 

[wvrevy]

One (in)famous usage of this was on the McCain Anti-Torture bill that was passed by congress stating that it will be the explicit policy of the United States not to turture people. Bush used a signing statement to exclude certain agencies and circumstances from that law, effectively rendering it useless (assuming sympathetic judges like Scalia and Co. side with him).

This is simply yet another example of Bush ignoring the constitution in order to do whatever he wants. The man doesn't think he's president...he thinks he's king.

 

[cardaway]

You can't think of one good reason why President Bush would enact a law and then add a disclaimer that he doesn't have to abide by it?

Just to be clear I was asking why these exist for anybody to use, not just Bush.

There doesn't seem to be a legit use that makes sense. They seem like a bad idea from every angle.

 

[Maleficent13]

Just to be clear I was asking why these exist for anybody to use, not just Bush.

There doesn't seem to be a legit use that makes sense. They seem like a bad idea from every angle.

Agreed.

 

[wvrevy]

Here is a recent signing statement made by Bush. Essentially, he is saying that he will only abide by this law when he feels like it.

Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
January 6th, 2006
Republish
Report Typo
Font Size:

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1815, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006." The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Several provisions of the Act, including sections 352, 360, 403, 562, 818, and 2822, call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress proposals for legislation, including budget proposals for enactment of appropriations, or purport to regulate or require disclosure of the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. The executive branch shall implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient. Also, the executive branch shall construe section 1206(d) of the Act, which purports to regulate formulation by executive branch officials of proposed programs for the President to direct, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to require the opinions of heads of executive departments. In addition, the executive branch shall construe section 1513(d) of the Act, which purports to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

A number of provisions of the Act, including sections 905, 932, 1004, 1212, 1224, 1227, and 1304, call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress on various subjects. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

Section 1222 of the Act refers to a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference on a bill as if the statement had the force of law. The executive branch shall construe the provision in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law.

The provisions in Title XIV in Division A of the Act are identical, except for a punctuation change in section 1405(b)(1)(B) and revisions in section 1406, to the corresponding provisions in Title X of Division A of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (H.R. 2863 of the 109th Congress) (Public Law 109-148). The statement I issued upon signing H.R. 2863 into law on December 30, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference insofar as that statement referred to Title X of Division A of that Act.

George W. Bush
The White House,
January 6, 2006.

You can read many others - from this president back to 1929 at this website: Presidential Signing Statements

 

[KarenC]

We have had a system of checks and balances in place since this country was founded and the constitution put in place. The attempt by this particular president to circumvent to a degree never before tried is truly frightening for those of us that believe that the system is greater than any one person.

ITA, and our country hasn't been helped by a rubber stamp congress that basically goes along with what W wants to do anyway.

I'm planning on making a lawn sign that simply says "Checks and Balances" before this November. I'm a big believer in the collective wisdom of the American people, but only when our system is allowed to work in the manner in which is was designed.

 

[Amy]

This type of thing is why I love the DIS - I had no idea signing statements existed, much less what they were. Now that I know, I don't like them one bit!

 

[Teejay32]

I have an idea of why they're used. Here's a simpler one:

Statement on Signing the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001
December 21st, 2001

Today I have signed into law S. 494, the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001." This Act symbolizes the clear bipartisan resolve in the United States to promoting human rights, good governance, and economic development in Africa. My Administration shares fully the Congress' deep concerns about the political and economic hardships visited upon Zimbabwe by that country's leadership. I hope the provisions of this important legislation will support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful democratic change, achieve economic growth, and restore the rule of law.

Section 4(c) of the Act purports to direct the executive branch to oppose and vote against the extension of loans or the cancellation of debt in international financial institutions unless and until I make a certification or national interest determination. I am concerned that this provision burdens my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs to conduct negotiations and cast votes in international organizations. I will construe the provision as being subject to my exclusive authority to negotiate or vote in international financial institutions.

George W. Bush
The White House,
December 21, 2001.

Foreign affairs is the domain of the executive branch. A form of "checks and balances" is already present because Congress holds the country's wallet. There is no reason for Congress to decide how the executive branch should vote in international institutions. This particular President is vigilant about pieces of legislation that could be construed to limit executive authority, but he also doesn't like vetoes. Signing statements are the result.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I cannot believe I'm about to start a debate on this, but I am so intrigued by these. I will be honest and say I was unfamiliar with them until the last few days. But now that I know they exist, I cannot stop thinking about them.

This is my interpretation of what they are: Little ditties the President (any President, not just the current one) adds to a bill he's signing into law, indicating his opinion of said bill/law.

Now, however, I find that on some of the bills Bush has approved, he has added signing statements that in effect act as a disclaimer, stating he reserves the right not to follow the law he is enacting?

Is this constitutional? I mean, can you sign a bill into law and then say, well, this is for everyone else but not me? I am not being sarcastic about this; I am truly interested in how this works.

The myriad things that are OK for government, but not OK for citizens used to upset me. Not just P. Bush, not just Presidents.

Then I quit listening and learning. Much happier now!

 

[Maleficent13]

Foreign affairs is the domain of the executive branch. A form of "checks and balances" is already present because Congress holds the country's wallet. There is no reason for Congress to decide how the executive branch should vote in international institutions. This particular President is vigilant about pieces of legislation that could be construed to limit executive authority, but he also doesn't like vetoes. Signing statements are the result.

Just because he "doesn't like vetoes" doesn't mean he can use a signing statement to create his own version of the law. If he thinks a particular piece of legislation will limit executive authority, then veto it.

I don't particularly like the fact that I can only drive 25mph on certain streets, but I can't decide to change it all by myself.

 

[wvrevy]

I have an idea of why they're used. Here's a simpler one:



Foreign affairs is the domain of the executive branch. A form of "checks and balances" is already present because Congress holds the country's wallet. There is no reason for Congress to decide how the executive branch should vote in international institutions. This particular President is vigilant about pieces of legislation that could be construed to limit executive authority, but he also doesn't like vetoes. Signing statements are the result.

Again, teejay...the president does not have unlimited power, and was never meant to. It is Congress that makes the laws that he must enforce. He doesn't get to do that. All he can do - legally - is veto the law. Instead, congress just whimpers in the corner - Dems and Repubs - while he walks all over the constitutional checks and balances.

The president IS and was meant to be under congressional authority. NOBODY was ever intended to be above the law. However, some people seem to think that we should have a king, rather than a president. Why these people also claim to be proud of our country is simply beyond my understanding, since they seem to hate everything about what makes this country what it is.

 

[Teejay32]

The president IS and was meant to be under congressional authority.

...except where and when he's not meant to be under congressional authority. Except where Congress has no authority. There are such instances, or else "checks and balances" would be a one-way street, and that's not how I understood it to be.

That's my only argument here. I don't know enough to say signing statements should or shouldn't be used.

 

[caitycaity]

...except where and when he's not meant to be under congressional authority. Except where Congress has no authority. There are such instances, or else "checks and balances" would be a one-way street, and that's not how I understood it to be.

That's my only argument here. I don't know enough to say signing statements should or shouldn't be used.

i have to say i agree with teejay on this (puts on political science hat, LOL). it is not really accurate to say that the president is supposed to be under congressional authority period.

 

[Teejay32]

TY, caity. I should also say that I like them, not for legal or political reasons but for historical ones. If you ever want to know what the chief executive was thinking when he signed whatever bill, that's where to start looking.

 

[sodaseller]

...except where and when he's not meant to be under congressional authority. Except where Congress has no authority. There are such instances, or else "checks and balances" would be a one-way street, and that's not how I understood it to be.

That's my only argument here. I don't know enough to say signing statements should or shouldn't be used.

But checks and balances are not meant to be strictly equal. Consider that bills can be passed over a veto; spending resolutions must originate in Congress, and the President can be removed by Congress but there is counterability; the President is required to report to Congress, and the President is even selected by Congress in reality, if not in practice any longer, although that could still kick in at some point. OTOH, the Constitution was ratified to remedy perceived weaknesses in the Articles, principle among which was the weak executive. Few realize that Geo Washington was not our first President; John Hanlon was, albeit President in Congress assembled, or something like that. But the point remains that oversight flows only one way Constitutionally. And though the Constitutional design was meant to elevate Congress over the Executive, much of that gap has narrowed in practice due to modern exigencies.

The particular problem with Bush's signing statements is that they are so broad and usually applied to bills specifically enacted to circumscribe executive power

 

[Teejay32]

The particular problem with Bush's signing statements is that they are so broad and usually applied to bills specifically enacted to circumscribe executive power

The signing statement itself is nothing, it's not a power, and people are obviously having problems with even that allowance of executive privilege, so he's probably got a point. It's just a statement. The guy can write about how he’s interpreting the law, how the law works and how it doesn't, how pleased or unpleased he is to be signing it, or how after he signs it he’s going to have a ham sandwich and beer and watch the Red Sox game, and maybe play golf tomorrow. Makes no difference.

 

[TheDoctor]

Signing statements are bush's declaration that he does not intend to follow a certain law in certain circumstances. The ABA has come down with the concept that these statements are unconsitituional. Senator Arlen Spector is working with the ABA on submitting a special bill for congress to have authority or standing to sue bush over these signing statements. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072601197.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter introduced legislation on Wednesday to challenge President George W. Bush's assertion that he can bypass sections of bills that he signs into law.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter's bill would empower Congress bring to federal court lawsuits to test the constitutionality of Bush's signing statements, which the president has appended to several bills he has signed.

In the statements, Bush has reserved the right not to enforce certain provisions of laws if he believes they impinge on his authority or interpretation of the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, Congress passes bills and the president may either sign or veto them, and give lawmakers an opportunity to override any veto.

"This bill does not seek to limit the president's power, and this bill does not seek to expand Congress' power," Specter said. "Rather, this bill simply seeks to safeguard our Constitution."

The legislation is expected to have broad support among Democrats, who have accused Bush of a power grab. Yet many Republicans have voiced objections, suggesting it may not get very far.....

Under Specter's bill, courts would be told they cannot rely on signing statements in interpreting federal laws.

An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the Constitution by issuing more than 800 challenges to provisions of laws he has signed, more than all other U.S. president combined.

For example, Bush signed a bill banning the torture of U.S.-held prisoners, but used a signing statement to signal that he might bypass the ban.

Other such statements suggest Bush might ignore provisions in an anti-terrorism law seeking more congressional oversight and reject a requirement that government scientists transmit findings to Congress uncensored.

I doubt that Spector's bill was pass but it will be interesting to see what happens.

The ABA's position is that bush either has to veto a law or if does sign a bill, then he has to enforce such bill as written and it is up to the courts to determine if a bill is unconstitutional.

 

[ChrisFL]

An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the Constitution by issuing more than 800 challenges to provisions of laws he has signed, more than all other U.S. president combined.

That's the part that scares me, its apparent that he isn't the first president to do this, but 800 times? That's averaging one every 3 days he's in office so far...I dont know about everyone else but that seems like a LOT.

He's not a President he's a wannabe Dictator and he's quoted as saying as much!!

 

[TheDoctor]

These numbers scare other people Bush has done more signing statements than all other presidents combined. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003151760_signed26.html

In five and a half years in office, President George W. Bush has lodged more "signing statements" — or challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress — than all 42 previous presidents combined.

Numbers don't lie. Bush is overusing a tool relied on occasionally throughout history to lay down legal objections in case of subsequent court challenges and to instruct agencies how to execute new laws. The imperial president has a more pernicious approach. He uses signing statements to expand his powers and cherry-pick laws he likes — or doesn't like. The president must be reined in because his actions display a disregard for the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

No president, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to expand his powers by mere assertion, at the expense of the Congress, the courts and the American public.

A new study by a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association shows Bush regularly relies on signing statements to get around laws not to his liking. One most notable example was a statement aimed at nullifying a ban on torture passed by Congress.

The arrogant president willfully hamstrings Congress by denying it one of its chief methods of pushing back on his actions: the chance to override a presidential veto.

The precedent matters most, which is why U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, seeks legislation allowing Congress to sue the president over his aggressive use of signing statements.

Specter's efforts, while perhaps unusual for a Republican senator against a president of his own party, are necessary to clarify roles and duties of the various branches of government.

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes, allowing him to revise, interpret or disregard laws, citing national security and constitutional concerns.

Forty-two other presidents combined objected to 600 provisions of new laws.

The study reveals a president bucking reasonable limits on his authority. Court intervention is necessary to set the procedures straight. No president is above the Constitution.

The US Supreme Court told bush that he was not a king in the Geneva Convention case and it appears that congress needs to do the same. I personally do not think that Senator Spector's bill has any chance of passing but hope that I am wrong.