Signing statement

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, a signing statement is a written comment from the president that immediately follows the signature when a federal law is signed. The comments are intended to determine the interpretation and manner in which the law will be carried out by the executive branch .

history

The first signing statements were written by President James Monroe . Neither the United States Constitution nor federal law contains any provisions that allow or prohibit these comments, directly or indirectly.

Until the 1980s , most signing statements were usually triumphant announcements that mostly went unnoticed. Until the presidency of Ronald Reagan , this instrument was used only 72 times. Reagan and his successors George HW Bush and Bill Clinton wrote 247 signing statements together , while President George W. Bush had written over 500 by March 2006 .

During his election campaign, President Barack Obama promised not to use the signing statements in the same controversial way as his predecessor. By July 2009 he had written five of these statements himself. It is not clear whether these contradict his election promise.

A circular from the Ministry of Justice dated November 3, 1999 explains the purpose of the Signing Statements with regard to potential unconstitutionality in the signed laws:

"If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing . If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority. "
“If the president can legitimately refuse to execute a law, especially if the law unconstitutionally restricts his powers, then it can be argued that he is allowed to announce to Congress and the public that he has decided not to execute a section of the law. If so, then a signing statement attacking what the President deems to be an unconstitutional interference with his or her powers or declaring that the President is unwilling to execute this section (or legal action against him) may be considered valid and proportional exercise of presidential competencies. "

Legal meaning

The legal meaning of the signing statements is unclear, but it is assumed that they themselves have no legal force, except that they represent a confirmation of the legal regulations and the obligation to carry them out.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the legal consequences of the signing statements . In a judgment in 1989, an appeals court in New York recognized a signing statement by Reagan, but did not derive any legal consequences from it. Other courts have noted or suggested that the comments “lack of persuasive authority”.

criticism

Critics have often noted that President Bush used signing statements to determine how the executive would interpret a law. Some claim that this application is tantamount to the line item veto, i.e. the veto against individual provisions of a law, although the Supreme Court had already declared this to be unconstitutional in the 1990s - the President may only sign a law as a whole or with it To veto.

One of the most controversial comments came about a federal law that once again prohibited ill-treatment of United States prisoners of war in 2005:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. "
“The executive interprets Title 10 of Section A of the Act, in relation to prisoners of war, in a manner consistent with the constitutional powers of the President to direct the executive in its entirety and as commander in chief, and in accordance with the constitutional restrictions on judicial power and that serves to fulfill the common goal of the President and Congress to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks, as provided for in Title 10. "

Since, with the help of the theory of the “unified executive”, the commander-in-chief has extensive powers to use his own discretion in interpreting and applying the law, the president has thus reserved the right to ignore the prohibition of torture.

swell

  1. ^ Dahlia Lithwick. Sign Here (English) . Slate , January 30, 2006.
  2. ↑ Charlie Savage. Barack Obama's Q&A (English) Boston Globe , December 20, 2007.
  3. ↑ Louis Jacobson. Exercising his power or venturing into congressional turf? (English) . PolitiFact.com , July 24, 2009.
  4. ↑ MEMORANDUM FOR BERNARD N. NUSSBAUM, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT ( English ) usdoj.gov. Archived from the original on July 11, 2009. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  5. ^ The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration ( English ) findlaw.com. Archived from the original on February 1, 2016. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  6. ^ McCain Detainee Amendment

Web links