# Bill introduced to limit presidential signing statements **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149 "2007-07-10T02:25:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/1 "2007-07-10T02:25:03Z")
Introduced, yet, by a Republican, Senator Arlen Specter. (John Kerry is cosponsoring it.) Story [here.](http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_GOP_Senator_seeks_to_limit_0703.html) > [@](#): > > Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter called President Bush’s abuse of the signing statements an “unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority.” He introduced his Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 on Friday, according to the Capitol Hill newspaper. > > “The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like,” Roll Call reported Specter said on the floor of the Senate. > > Specter’s bill would prevent the president from issuing a signing statement that alters a statute’s meaning by “instructing federal and state courts not to rely on presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute,” Roll Call reported. His measure also would give Congress a heightened role in court cases involving an interpretation of law in an existing statement by allowing Congress to file briefs and present oral arguments in the cases. > > The Government Accountability Office found in mid-June that in several cases the administration did not execute laws as Congress intended when Bush attached a signing statement to them. This raises a delicate constitutional question: There is case law holding that a court may consider [presidential signing statements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement) 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.) Earlier relevant threads: [Presidential “signing statements” and the “legislative history”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667) [Bush still appending “signing statements” to new laws saying he won’t obey them](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=370027) [Even conservatives have a problem with Bush’s “signing statements”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=379791) [I think we’re headed for a Constitutional crisis … .](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=391077) [Can/should/will Pelosi sue Bush over a “signing statement”?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=420187) [New GAO report on Bush signing statements](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=425483) ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/2 "2007-07-10T07:26:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/3 "2007-07-10T07:56:33Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/4 "2007-07-10T11:25:30Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/5 "2007-07-10T11:39:40Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] Signing statements are a back door line item veto which has been found unconstitutional. [/QUOTE] Cite? 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. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/6 "2007-07-10T11:49:55Z")
[QUOTE=Diceman] Cite? [/QUOTE] 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](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/) are themselves unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/7 "2007-07-10T18:01:32Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] 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 . . . [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-introduced-to-limit-presidential-signing-statements/411149/8 "2007-07-11T19:25:22Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] 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. [/QUOTE] 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.