Presidential Signing Statements

Presidential signing statements are proclamations added by the President of the United States to pieces of legislation he signs, indicating how he intends to interpret and enforce a bill passed by Congress. These signing statements are unconstitutional and should not be permitted nor should they have to be followed.

Although there is nothing in the United States Constitution which allows for a president to issue any statement upon signing a bill presented by Congress, presidential signing statements have been used since the presidency of James Monroe and have carried on up until today. Since the Ronald Reagan administration, the practice of using signing statements has continued to increase dramatically. Though in the past used sparingly, presidential signing statements have now become commonplace. By doing this, it is a form of line item veto used by governors, where the governor has the power to veto some parts of a budget without vetoing the entire budget. In his time of office, George W. Bush objected to well over 1200 provisions, which is more than twice as many as all other Presidents combined. [Data compiled by Christopher Kelley, Miami of Ohio University]. Since there is not a provision in the Constitution specifically pertaining to signing statements nor does it state that a President can take it upon himself to decide which parts of a statute to follow and which parts not to follow, they are unconstitutional.

On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued the report of a Blue -Ribbon Task Force on Bush's signing statements that concluded "presidential signing statements that assert President Bush's authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress, undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers. To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President's right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional." [American Bar Association, Press Release]. Other legal experts have argued that signing statements were lawful and appropriate because it was impractical to veto important bills over small problems. However, it states in the Constitution that any part of a bill passed by Congress that does not meet the approval of the President is to be vetoed and be sent back to Congress to make improvements or changes. The President cannot take it upon himself to decide which parts of proposed legislation to follow and which not to follow. By doing this it eliminates the checks and balances system set forth in the Constitution. Thus, this makes signing statements unconstitutional.

Congress has tried to make efforts to restrict presidential signing statements. On July 26, 2006, two days after the ABA released their report, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. The bill was designed to do two things. One was to instruct all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements, calling for the courts not to rely on nor defer to a signing statement as a source of authority. The other was to instruct the Supreme Court to allow the Senate or House of Representatives to file suit in order to determine the constitutionality of signing statements. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but was never passed.

The Supreme Court's reliance