Signing statements

Links

Is the Presidency Imperial or Imperilled? 

Expansion of Presidential Power  

What is it? A statement written and signed by the president at the same time as signing a piece of legislation. When signing a bill the president may state that they will not enforce certain sections (for example, because they deem them to be unconstitutional). This gives the president the power to effectively hold a line-item veto, allowing them to strike out individual lines of a bill. The Supreme Court has declared the line-item veto unconstitutional in Clinton v New York 1998, stating that a president can either accept or reject a whole bill only. Many signing statements (or parts of them) have limited constitutional significance.

Political or rhetorical statements: These are often used to add positive commentary to a bill.

A president might thank Congress for their hard work in passing a bill, or praise the bill's goals in a statement.

A president could issue a statement that includes famous or inspirational quotes, though these are usually not legally binding or impactful in the same way as other types of statements.

Legal and constitutional statements: These are the more controversial type of statement.

A president can use a signing statement to claim a particular section of a law is unconstitutional.

They can also use these statements to instruct executive agencies on how to interpret and implement a law, sometimes arguing the law should not be enforced as written if it conflicts with their interpretation of the Constitution.

For example, a president might sign a bill into law but include a statement saying that a certain provision is unconstitutional and that executive agencies should not enforce it. 

Evidence In 2014, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which contained a clause requiring the Defense Secretary to notify congressional committees at least 30 days before moving someone from Guantanamo Bay. Obama issued a signing statement rejecting congressional authority here. Obama did not comply with the act when he secretly traded a captured US soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, for five Taliban members detained at Guantanamo.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited inhumane treatment of enemy combatants and required military interrogations to be performed according to the U.S. Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Known as the “McCain Amendment” after Senator John McCain (1936–2018), who had been tortured when held as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, the amendment was designed to halt the use of torture on detainees during the Bush administration’s War on Terror. President Bush signed the act into law, but concurrently with his approval of the legislation the president also included a signing statement that appeared to call into question Congress’ authority to impose such limitations on the executive. 

President Bush issued more than 160 signing statements, many of which included multiple constitutional and statutory objections. While signing statements were somewhat common during the middle of the twentieth century, President Bush issued more of them and raised broader constitutional objections than contained in previous presidents’ signing statements. 

Limits The president can issue such words but may find it difficult actually to bring about any change. For most laws, such as budget agreements, there is little a president can do with a signing statement. Also, a signing statement is only words on a page. Congress may insist on the laws it has passed, and the Supreme Court could force the president to follow the intentions of congressional law. Future (and current) presidents are not obliged to follow suit. Obama signed a statement saying he would not use drone strikes to kill US citizens in the US, even though he signed a law permitting it. There is no reason why President Trump needs to follow this existing interpretation of the law.