Signing Statements
Signing statements—formal expression of the views of the president regarding legislation—have been used by presidents of both parties dating back to James Monroe. Throughout history, signing statements have been added to bills to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill and express satisfaction or, on occasion, displeasure with legislation passed by Congress. More recently, presidents have transformed their use of signing statements in a way that raises serious constitutional concerns. They have increasingly been used to challenge, disregard and deny effect to signed legislation, purportedly based on constitutional grounds. When used in this manner, signing statements undermine the rule of law and our system of checks and balances.
The Constitution grants the president authority to veto entire bills, and if this occurs, Congress has the power to override the veto with a supermajority. Presidential signing statements, however, bypass this prescribed process by effectively repealing and amending parts of laws without meaningful oversight. This, on its face, is at odds with the Article III, Section 3 requirement that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The executive’s use of signing statements also infringes upon duties that rightly belong to the judicial branch. Signing statements displaces the courts as the final expositor of what the law is, and in the process, weakens the power of judicial review.
The Constitution Project’s efforts in this area emphasize that all three branches of government have an important role in fixing this constitutional problem. The president has the obligation to limit the use of signing statements to the purpose and significance of bills, not the constitutionality. Congress and the courts have the duty to defend the separation of powers doctrine by overseeing and limiting the use of signing statements.
