|
'''Nick Tyler''' is
[[Image:Bush reagan.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Proponents of strong constitutional signing statements: [[Ronald Reagan]], left, and [[George H. W. Bush]], right.]]
A '''signing statement''' is a proclamation, normally written, issued by a member of the [[executive branch]] of a [[government]], usually the head of that branch, to accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law.
The term is mostly used by the [[federal government of the United States]].
==Types and meanings of signing statements==
===The three types of signing statement===
Generally any executive statement made with the signing of a law can be said to be a signing statement. [[Christopher Kelley]], a political scientist who has analyzed signing statements, groups them into three categories: <ref name="kelly">Kelly, Christopher S. (April 3-6, 2003). [http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1031858822.pdf "A Comparative Look at the Constitutional Signing Statement: The Case of Bush and Clinton"]. ''61st Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association''.</ref>
*[[Rhetorical]], "this is a great law"
*[[Political]], "this law meets the need of our unions"
*[[Constitutional]], "I'm signing this law, but won't enforce section 2"
In common usage, the phrase "signing statement" normally refers to 'Constitutional' statements that direct how the law is to be applied.
===A note on applying a metric to signing statements===
It is common for different metrics to be used when counting an executive's total use of signing statements. A flat count of total signing statements would include the rhetorical and political statements as well as the constitutional. This may give a misleading number when the intent is to count the number of constitutional challenges issued.
Another common metric is to count the number of statutes that are disputed by signing statements. This addresses a count of the constitutional issues, but may be inherently inaccurate due to ambiguity in the signing statements themselves, as well as the method of determining which statutes are challenged.
==Legal significance in the United States==
No [[United States Constitution]] provision, federal statute or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]], [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 7: Bills|Section 7]] (in the [[Presentment Clause]]) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]], [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Section 3: Presidential responsibilities|Section 3]] requires that the executive ''"take care that the laws be faithfully executed"''.
Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself.
===Supreme Court rulings===
The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' ([[1803]]) and its progeny are generally considered to have established [[judicial review]] as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. ''[[Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.]]'' 467 U.S. 837 ([[1984]]) recognized court deference to executive interpretations of a law "[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=467&page=837 if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue]" and if the interpretation is reasonable. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in ''[[Clinton v. City of New York]]'' ([[1998]]), which invalidated any form of [[line item veto]].
===Presidential usage===
The first [[President of the United States|president]] to issue a signing statement was [[James Monroe]].<ref name="KelleyDiss">Kelley, Christopher (2003), ''The Unitary Executive and the Presidential Signing Statement'', Ph.D. Dissertation, Miami University.</ref> Until the [[1980s]], with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until [[Ronald Reagan]] became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[Bill Clinton]] made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, [[George W. Bush]], the current President, has issued over 750 signing statements. <ref name="slate">Lithwick, Dahlia (Jan. 30, 2006). [http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/ "Sign Here"]. ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]''.</ref>
A [[November 3]], [[1993]] memo from the Clinton Justice Department explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:
:If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.[http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm]
Signing statements may be viewed as a type of [[executive order]] without congressional (democratic) oversight. Other types of executive order are, [[presidential directive|national security directives]], [[presidential directive|homeland security presidential directives]], and [[presidential decision directives]], all of which deal with [[national security]] and defense matters.
==Criticism==
=== George W. Bush's use of signing statements===
{{wikinews|Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight}}
Critics observe that George W. Bush has often issued signing statements, detailing how the executive branch will construe legislation. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses them as [[line-item veto]] although the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] already held the line item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of power in ''[[Clinton v. City of New York]]''.<ref>On signing statements
*[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20060113.html The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration] By JOHN W. DEAN, [http://www.findlaw.com/ FindLaw], January 13, 2006
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/politics/politicsspecial1/14statements.html Presidential Signing Statements, and Alito's Role in Them, Are Questioned]
*[http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/15/news/letter.php White House Letter: How Bush tries shaping new laws to his liking] by Elisabeth Bumiller [[International Herald Tribune]], JANUARY 15, 2006
*[http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060124/constitutional_license.php Constitutional License] by Aziz Huq, TomPaine.com, January 24, 2006
*[http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/13568438.htm Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power] By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn, Knight Ridder Newspapers, January 06, 2006</ref>
Bush supporters note that previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. However, George W. Bush has issued over 500 signing statements containing at least 750 challenges.<ref name="slate"/> <ref>*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/statutes_challenged/ Number of new statutes challenged], Christopher Kelley, The Boston Globe, April 30, 2006</ref> In the words of a ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]'' commentary:
:''And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.''<ref>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/opinion/05fri1.html Veto? Who Needs a Veto?] ''[[The New York Times]]'', May 5, 2006</ref>
One of the signing statements which has attracted most controversy is the signing of the [[McCain Detainee Amendment]], prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody:
:''"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."''
Since, under the [[unitary executive theory]], the [[Commander-in-Chief]] has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law regarding the manner in which the President acts pursuant to executive authority, some critics argue that the President has with that statement reserved the right to waive the "torture ban."<ref>McCain Detainee Amendment
*[http://www.alternet.org/story/30705/ The Impeachment of George W. Bush] By [[Elizabeth Holtzman]], [[The Nation]], January 12, 2006.
*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban] By [[Charlie Savage]]. [[The Boston Globe]]. January 4, 2006. (Discussing Bush's claim, in a signing statement, that he has the authority to make exceptions to a law forbidding harsh interrogation techniques)</ref>
On [[June 5]], [[2006]], the [[American Bar Association]]'s Board of Directors formed a Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to review the use of signing statements and whether or not this use is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.<ref name="ABA">{{cite press release|publisher=[[American Bar Association]]|date=[[June 5]], [[2006]]|url=http://www.abanews.org/releases/news060506.html|title=ABA to Examine Constitutional, Legal Issues of Presidential Signing Statements|accessdate=2006-06-07}}</ref>
==See also==
*[[List of United States federal executive orders]]
*[[Enabling act]]
==References==
<references />
==External links==
*[http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1999/msg00447.html DoD Bill Signing Statement] Example of a signing statement issued by President [[Bill Clinton]] on November 4, 1999.
*[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0700611800/002-0679237-5294443?n=283155 By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action] By Phillip J. Cooper. University Press of Kansas: 2002.
*[http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?miami1057716977 The Unitary Executive and the Presidential Signing Statement] Doctoral dissertation by Christopher S. Kelley, Ph.D., 2003.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power] By Christopher Lee. [[Washington Post]]. January 2, 2006. (Discussing encouragement of the use of signing statements by [[Samuel Alito]] when he worked in the administration of former President [[Ronald Reagan]])
*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban] By [[Charlie Savage]]. [[The Boston Globe]]. January 4, 2006. (Disclosing Bush's claim, in a signing statement, that he has the authority to make exceptions to a law forbidding harsh interrogation techniques)
*[http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/13568438.htm Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power] By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn. Knight Ridder Newspapers. January 6, 2006.
* [http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?] By Jennifer Van Bergen. Findlaw. January 9, 2009.
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/politics/politicsspecial1/14statements.html Presidential Signing Statements, and Alito's Role in Them, Are Questioned] By Adam Liptak. The New York Times. January 14, 2006.
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/politics/16letter.html For President, Final Say on a Bill Sometimes Comes After the Signing] By Elisabeth Bumiller. The New York Times. January 16, 2006.
*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement] By [[Charlie Savage]]. [[The Boston Globe]]. March 24, 2006. (Disclosing Bush's claim, in a signing statement, that he has the authority to defy provisions in the new version of the [[USA Patriot Act]] requiring him to tell Congress how he is using its expanded police powers.)
*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws] By [[Charlie Savage]]. [[The Boston Globe]]. April 30, 2006. (A detailed look at five years of specific signing statement claims.)
*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/ Examples of Bush Signing Statements] By [[Charlie Savage]]. [[The Boston Globe]]. April 30, 2006.
[[Category:Constitutional law]]
[[Category:George W. Bush administration controversies]]
[[Category:Presidency of the United States]]
[[Category:United States executive orders]]
[[Category:United States constitutional case law]]
[[Category:United States law]]
[[de:Signing Statement]]
| 