Introduced, yet, by a Republican, Senator Arlen Specter. (John Kerry is cosponsoring it.) Story here.
This raises a delicate constitutional question: There is case law holding that a court may consider presidential signing statements when interpreting a statute. The theory is that the president acts in a legislative capacity when signing a bill, therefore his interpretation of it, while not dispositive, must be given some weight. So would this new bill be, well, constitutional? (Leaving aside the obvious question of how a Bush signing statement would affect its interpretation. Which does not arise anyway as he almost certainly would veto it.)
There’s no question the practice is being abused. Exactly how much legislative power is the president supposed to have, anyway? I thought the answer was pretty close to “none”, so if a law limiting the influence of signing statements is found to be unconstitutional I’d be a bit surprised.
Signing statements are an interesting area, but more important I think are internal controls, executive orders, and other such guidelines that the President can use to control elements of the Federal bureaucracy. If a President really wants to implement a law in a manner not entirely consistent with Congress’s intent, he can, with or without signing statements. Part of our system of checks and balances requires each branch to remain vigilant and slap the hand of the other branches when they reach too far; this bill might be part and parcel of a genuine attempt to do that by the Congress. However if Congress were really serious about making sure this particular President executed laws in a manner consistent with how Congress intended I can also think of a few more effective and hardline measures (although cutting back on signing statements is a good start.)
Signing statements in and of themselves aren’t bad, although they can certainly be used to exert an inappropriate amount of executive influence on legislative functions. Part of the reason signing statements have even worked their way into our government is because of the practice of legislators to craft laws that are vague, meaning the President historically has been forced to do some interpretation (although historical signing statements seem to have been mostly rhetorical), and having a written record of how the President has chosen to interpret a vague statute is important and there is value in that (I suppose maybe a constitutional scholar could explain why laws are sometimes written in a manner that is so vague that it more or less requires Presidential interpretation.)
The president can’t act in a legislative capacity any more than the legislature can act in a judicial capacity. Signing statements are a back door line item veto which has been found unconstitutional. I think Congress has every right to tell the president to either sign bills or veto them- period. If they are too vague, veto them and have them cleared up.
As Martin Hyde said, signing statements are perfectly proper, even necessary, when a law is unclear or requires interpretation. What Congress is objecting to is signing statements that go far beyond any reasonable interpretation.
I was probably a bit unclear. What I meant was that in my opinion, signing statements are a back-door line item veto, and that line item vetos are themselves unconstitutional.
That is not true. They are as specific as the legislators can think to make them. Sometimes they appear vague in hindsight because it is impossible for them to anticipate every possible situation to which a given law might apply.
As for interpretation, isn’t that the business of the courts?
He gets to approve or veto a bill, therefore his view of the bill is considered part of its “legislative history” – like the debates around it in Congress, to which a court can sometimes look for guidance in interpretation.
Which does not arise anyway as he almost certainly would veto it.)