Signing Statements

[NoFederales]

Are signing statements by a President necessary?

When the signing statement becomes “interpretive” by the President, is that not an abridgement to the Constitution?

GW Bush often refers to the “unitary executive” in his signing statements—is that an un-democratic notion, does it fly full in the face of “separation of powers”?

NoFederales

[tblue]

1. No, Yes, Yes

Now that we have a Constitutional scholar in the White House, hopefully those Signing Statements will be tossed out for good.

[av8rdave]

2. It is my understanding that signing statements have been used in the past

although for different purposes. I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember reading somewhere that the purpose of a signing statement is to give the President an opportunity to provide his/her interpretation of the legislation if they anticipate it may be challenged in court one day.

Signing statements do NOT exist to give the President any more authority than the Constitution allows!

[grantcart]

3. Before Reagan they were basically ceremonial statements

Here is a good article on them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

[Essene]

4. I hope Obama makes a very big deal about these... for the history books

I hope he even goes so far as to imply if not explicitly say... they undermine the Constitutional definition and balance of powers.

[Truth2Tell]

5. Obama was asked to promise no signing statements

during the campaign. McCain promised to never use them. Obama has said he will use them "when appropriate"

"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html

This is not a position I'm pleased with. But there you have it.

[louis-t]

7. I agree with his position.

Remember, the original use of signing statements is purposeful. Bush has bastardized the function of signing statements for his own political and narcissistic purposes. I don't believe a Constitutional scholar will use them to change the meaning of legislation.

[Truth2Tell]

8. Fair enough, but why do they need them at all?

Isn't a court the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of legislation anyway?

[Eric J in MN]

6. Obama agrees with Bush...

...that if a president think parts of a bill are unconsitutional, he shouldn't veto it.

Instead, the president should sign the bill and then write a signing statement about the supposedly unconsitutional parts of the bill.

=====================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html


"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."
=====================

I "doubt" that presidents should sign bills they consider unconstitutional.