There is some really great information of signing statements here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.phpYou can even select a year from 1929 - 2006 and see a list of each years' signing statements.
Here's an extract of some info from there:
- Q: Is George W. Bush the first President to issue signing statements?
A: NO. Several sources trace “signing statements” back to James Monroe. Interesting early statements that include discussions about presidential doubt about legislation and the issue of how the president should proceed are found from Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Ulysses Grant. A brief overview can be found in the ABA Task Force cited below.
Monroe’s messages did not look like what are today considered “signing statement.” Rather he informed Congress in a message January 17, 1822, that he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority.
- Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?
A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”
- Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?
A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.
- Q: What kind of claims does Bush make in his signing statements that has people upset?
A: In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.
- Q: Is this a liberal-conservative issue? Are there any liberals that side with Bush?
A: An important legal statement in support of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law. The entire 1993 memo may be found here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htmIn an essay published in the Boston Globe on August 9, 2006, liberal scholar Lawrence Tribe wrote that signing statements are “informative and constitutionally unobjectionable.” Tribe writes that what is objectionable is “the president’s failure to face the political music by issuing a veto and subjecting that veto to the possibility of an override in Congress.” An eventual challenge to a president should come not to the statement, but to the fact that a president failed to enforce a law or that his actions resulted in harm to others. In the latter case, Tribe has in mind Presidential directives about how to treat “unlawful combatants.”
Good stuff there.
Good question, thanks for posting.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
