US presidents can include signing statements when signing bills into law, which can be used to interpret the law to their advantage. This tactic was rarely used before the late 1980s, but since then, over 200 have been drafted by Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. The signing statement can be used to argue against the president’s need to observe the law, and can inflame political parties or define the vagaries of the law more specifically. The US Supreme Court has held that a signed statement should not be used to interpret the law, but judges are not required to disregard them. A bill proposed in 2006 would ban judges from considering signing statements as authority and allow Congress to object to them. Many argue that signing statements go against the balance of power in the US government.
When the President of the United States signs a bill, he has the option of including a signing statement. A signatory statement accompanying a law was not used frequently until the late 1980s. Since that time, President Ronald Reagan, President George Bush, President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush have drafted over 200 signed statements. Prior to Reagan’s presidency, the signing statement was a little-used tactic, occurring only 75 times in 200 years of rule.
A signed statement is not prohibited, although it is argued that a signed statement should be considered no more important than the signed law that accompanies it. However, it can occasionally be a statement about how the President intends to interpret the law to his advantage.
For example, President George W. Bush’s signed statement accompanying the McCain Detainee Act of 2005, which bans the torture of detained suspects, detracted from the law by suggesting that the president would administer the law at his discretion. Often, the signing statement may be one that suggests the law interferes with the President’s executive powers and therefore can only be enforced if necessary.
In fact, the president of the United States is obligated to include a signing statement if he believes the law in any way negates presidential powers. While Congress prefers laws to apply to everyone in the country and prefers to draft a law that is observed by all, the signing statement can be an argument against the president’s need to observe the law.
The signing statement is usually enforced in one of three ways. It may include a statement that the law goes against the constitutionally defined powers of the executive branch. It can be used to inflame a political party into acting in a certain way. Alternatively, it may define the vagaries of the law more specifically in the hope that the signing statement will be used as an interpretive by the judges who administer the law.
In many cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that a signed statement by a president should not be used to interpret the law. Rather, the interpretation of the law is the focus of the judicial branch of government. However, a judge is not required to disregard a signed statement in adjudicating a case.
Concern about executive interference in the province’s legislative branch through signing declarations has spawned a bill that would actually negate the potential power of signing declaration. The Presidential Signing Statement Bill proposed in 2006 would ban judges from considering signing statements as authority. It would also allow the House of Representatives or the Senate to object to a president’s signing statement and, if necessary, to seek that the statement be unconstitutional.
Many argue that the signing statement goes against the balance of power that is supposedly the hallmark of the US government. It should be noted that a member of the president’s political party introduced this bill. This is less of a partisan issue, and more simply a matter of interpretation regarding the extent of political power held by any one branch of government.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
