Are presidential signing statements unconstitutional?

[napi21]

Probably not. But they don't have much impact, either.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_presidential_signing_statements_unconstitutional.html

But signing statements appear to have had little significant impact, at least when it comes to court rulings. The courts, which often take into account statements made by members of Congress when deciding cases involving statutory interpretation, have not given similar weight to presidential signing statements.


I foud this really interesting. Have WE been getting way to upset over not so much?

[Vincardog]

1. We have been getting upset over dimson using signing statements to ignor lawful requirements.

[Tesha]

2. Nobody can say until it's litigated. Know any Dems who'll challenge them? (NT)

[napi21]

3. If we can bbelieve FactCheck, the courts have ignored them!

Isn't THAT the most important?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. If they aren't, they should be, because he's using signing statements

to refuse to enforce laws that he himself has signed--instead of having the guts to veto them and risk an override vote. If he signs a bill but then issues a signing statement about why he won't enforce it, then Congress can't do anything about it.

[damntexdem]

5. No.

But enforcing them is.

[BuyingThyme]

6. Yes, people don't understand signing statements.

You can't impeach over a signing statements.

You can, however, be impeached for following through with crap you happen to put in signing statements.

[bemildred]

7. The Constitution says nothing about them.

It seems to me that Congress could easily outlaw them, if it chose. I would think that if they are law at all, they are administrative law, which Congress could forbid or reverse. It would require a lot of creativity for the USSC to find a way to justify allowing the pResident to rule by fiat. Although I expect some of the present members would try.

[napi21]

9. IMO if the courts are ignoring them, it doesn't matter. It's a feel good

and boost the base thing.

[jody]

8. IMO presidential signing statements are less constitutional than executive orders. Both in essence

make laws and that duty is for congress alone.

Executive orders have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress if those acts give the President discretionary powers. That is not true for all executive orders.

[Wizard777]

10. Exactly! Bush uses them to modify legislation or it's application. Which is legislating.

Only Congress can do that.

[salin]

11. The excuse for the signing statements is for future court rulings BUT

the potentially serious problem has nothing to do with that - it has to do with how the federal government (agencies) follow the law. Do the implement the law according to how it was written, or based on the signing statements. THAT is the crux of the issue and in that case the president, and the federal agencies that (if) follow the signing statements rather than the laws as written (and signed into law by the president) is extraconstitutional.

I have yet to read much about how the laws are being executed - following the law or following the signing statement.