Blog: The Fine Print

Specter Tries to Rein in Signing Statements

by Chris George*, 4/27/2009

Open, Accountable Government

 Last Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced a bill, the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2009, that would rein in the use of presidential signing statements. This legislation instructs federal and state courts to not treat presidential signing statements as authoritative in interpreting laws passed by Congress. It further enables Congress to file an amicus brief and present an oral argument in any case in which the interpretation or constitutionality of a law passed by Congress is in question. Courts would be additionally required to enter into the case record any joint resolution expressing the correct interpretation of the law in the eyes of Congress, as well as to expedite any such cases. 

Signing statements were first issued during the presidency of James Monroe. Historically, they have been used to give the president’s sense of why the particular statute is important and what it will accomplish; to assign credit to members of Congress who were instrumental in getting the legislation passed; and to instruct executive departments and agencies on how to administer the law, pursuant to the president’s power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 3). 

The use of signing statements has proliferated in recent years. As Sen. Specter observed in his comments upon introducing the bill:
 
President Clinton issued 105 signing statements; President Bush issued 161.  What is more alarming than the sheer numbers, is that President Bush’s signing statements often raised constitutional concerns and other objections to several provisions of a law. The President used those statements in a way that threatened to render the legislative process a virtual nullity, making it completely unpredictable how certain laws will be enforced. Even where Congress managed to negotiate checks on executive power, the President used signing statements to override the legislative language and defy congressional intent.
 
When presidents are permitted to only enforce certain provisions of a law, it is tantamount to a line-item veto, a power ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. The Constitution clearly delineates the checks and balances of the legislative process, by which the president is able to veto Acts of Congress within a ten-day window following passage (excluding Sundays); Congress may override this veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses. Signing statements bypass this process and permit a unilateral exercise of executive power, thereby violating the checks and balances of the Constitution and vastly diminishing the power of the people’s representatives to pass important legislation. 
 
As is often the case in politics, when it comes to signing statements, where you stand depends on where you sit. That is to say, whether or not their use is viewed as appropriate depends on whether or not you agree with the politics of the president and the ends that he is trying to achieve. But legislating in a democratic system of government does not depend on the whims or the politics of one man. It requires debate, compromise, and majority rule. There is a role to be played by signing statements: to educate the people and to aid the president in providing guidance to the executive branch. But Congress ought to take action to ensure that the balance of powers established in our Constitution is preserved and that the will of the people is not subverted.

 

 

back to Blog
  • ©2025 Project On Government Oversight
  • All Rights Reserved.
  • This an archive site of the materials produced by the Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch) and is maintained by the Project On Government Oversight.