Presidential Signing Statements 2001-2006 & links
http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/FAQs.htm
Presidential Signing Statements
2001-2006
George W. Bush
FAQs
Read About Presidential Signing Statements
click to see date of last update
1. WHAT ARE PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS?
2. WHERE CAN SIGNING STATEMENTS BE FOUND?
2.a. Where can I get signing statements issued by presidents other than George W. Bush?
3. HOW MANY SIGNING STATEMENTS HAS GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED?
4. WHY IS GEORGE BUSH'S USE OF SIGNING STATEMENTS CONTROVERSIAL?
4.a. Read Widely
4.b. Core Concepts; Miniature Civics Lesson for Laypersons
4.c. Are Only Two Branches of Government Affected?
4.d. Are Signing Statements the Whole Paper Trail?
5. ESSENTIAL READING: THE LINKS
6. WHAT'S NEW ON THIS SITE?
1. What are presidential signing statements?
When a United States President signs or vetoes legislation enacted by Congress, he may issue a written statement commenting on his actions. Here's a very brief explanation from Cheryl Nyberg, at the University of Washington School of Law. Here's Wikipedia's entry. (Caveat: This Wikipedia entry erroneously says that a signing statement is a type of proclamation, even though presidential proclamations and presidential signing statements are two distinct types of documents. The article should have used a word that is not a legal term of art, such as "comment" or "pronouncement" to describe the statements, rather than "proclamation." Otherwise, the Wikipedia entry is good enough to get you started.)
2. Where can I find presidential signing statements?
This webpage exists because: (1) most non-lawyers find it difficult to locate the text of presidential signing statements; and (2) even lawyers will find this site more convenient than pecking about for the individual documents. Bloggers and media commentators have remarked on how difficult it is to locate presidential signing statements.
The University of Chicago Law Library has published a very helpful guide to locating presidential documents, including signing statements. However, most of the resources listed there are more easily accessed by attorneys than by members of the public. Most of the sources are inaccessible to laypersons because: (1) access to the source (e.g., print publications by West, or subscription-only online legal databases such as Westlaw or LEXIS-NEXIS) is expensive; or (2) a reader must both visit a law library and have the skills necessary to navigate legal materials; or, (3) when statements are online, they either are spread out among many documents or are not in searchable formats.
This website is certainly not the only place to locate signing statements. The American Presidency Project has the signing statements of all United States Presidents since 1929. (Thanks to Bill Ford, of the University of Chicago Law School and the ELS blog, for this link.) While the American Presidency Project provides text of the signing statements of all presidents, it does not provide the text of the laws affected by the signing statements. This website posts only George W. Bush's statements, but it also links directly to the full text of the Congressional enactments affected by George W. Bush's signing statements.
In sum, if you want to see Bill Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's signing statements and don't need access to the text of the affected laws, the American Presidency Project's website is a better choice. If you want to read George W. Bush's statement upon signing, for instance, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005" and to see the text of that law, use the annotations on this website. This website also places all of George W. Bush's signing statements in one large HTML document to make it easier to search the text of the signing statements (and text excerpted from the affected laws).
The signing statements are available, for free, on the official White House website. However, unlike Executive Orders, Proclamations, or press releases, presidential signing statements are not numbered, grouped, or neatly indexed on the White House website. Nor are they uniformly titled. Further, because the documents employ language that is typically familiar or useful only to scholars and attorneys, plain language word searches (such as "torture" or "Sarbanes-Oxley") do not bring up signing statements relating to that topic. Signing statements are presented in a more orderly fashion in the "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (WCPD)," published by the Government Printing Office (GPO). However, to locate all of the signing statements indexed in the WCPD between January of 2001 and June of 2006, one must examine about 290 files.
This website triple sources the signing statements: it sets out the full text of each signing statement, provides a link to the same statement at the White House website, and provides a link to the GPO's online WCPD. Triple-sourcing is provided for two reasons. First, it helps readers verify the text of the signing statements. Second, the exact number of statements is controversial, and providing all sources may help resolve the controversy.
The signing statements comment on legislation enacted by Congress and refer to the legislation by bill and resolution numbers. The statements can be difficult to understand without the laws to which they refer. Therefore, this website also provides links to the full text of all legislation subject to the signing statements. Links to the text of Congressional enactments appear only on the annotated signing statements page. The annotations also provide legal citations to the session laws (the United States Statutes at Large) and to public law numbers. This helps serious researchers: (a) track the laws in the three major codifications of federal statutes (i.e., the United States Code, the United States Code Annotated, and the United States Code Service), and (b) cite the laws.
3. How many statements has George W. Bush signed?
Two types of "metrics" have surfaced in news articles and web and media comments. One approach is to count the documents identified as "signing statements" that President Bush has issued when signing Congressional enactments. The second is to count the number of laws challenged in those documents.
a. Counting the Documents Identified as "Signing Statements"
Even this number is somewhat uncertain. On June 27, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings concerning George W. Bush's use of signing statement. Office of Legal Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman, who identified herself as the Department of Justice's expert on signing statements, represented the Bush administration at the hearing. Ms. Boardman's remarks to the Committee were somewhat unclear, but she seems to have indicated that there were 110 signing statements (or, by an alternate reading of her words, perhaps as many as 126). See, e.g., John Dean, The Bush Administration's Adversarial Relationship with Congress -- as Illustrated by Its Refusal to Even Provide the Number of Signing Statements Issued by President Bush, FindLaw (July 14, 2006). The question became a bit clouded by attempts to categorize the statements as "rhetorical," or "constitutional," etc. See also, Bush blocked probe, AG testifies: Senate examines wiretap program (Boston Globe, July 19, 2006) (Attorney General Gonzales contesting number of signing statements.)
By my count, on June 27, 2006, President Bush had issued 129 documents expressly identified as signing statements in the GPO's WCPD or on the White House website. I've found two signing statements (2001-02, 2004-17) that have been published in the WCPD but cannot be found at the White House website. I have found one document (2002-08) on the White House website that has not appeared in the WCPD. This statement (2002-08) is probably not a signing statement; it is difficult to say, because the White House does not title, segregate, or index signing statements in the uniform, systematic manner that it presents Executive Orders and Proclamations. The WCPD is systematic in its labeling and grouping, and it does not identify 2002-08 as a signing statement.
On July 11, 2006, George W. Bush signed an additional statement, bringing my count to 130 (assuming that 2002-08 is not a signing statement). I cannot assure the public that this is all of the statements. However, I am confident that I have found all of the signing statements that have been made public on the White House website or have appeared in the WCPD from January 19, 2001, through July 11, 2006.
b. Counting the Number of Laws Challenged in Signing Statements
A single signing statement may comment on several provisions of the Congressional enactment to which it pertains. Some people count each statutory (or non-codified) provision affected by a single document as a separate statement. Under this metric, a single document that challenges 40 laws is counted as 40 signing statements.
Months ago, Charlie Savage, of the Boston Globe, and Christopher Kelley, Ph.D, a political scientist at the University of Miami, examined the signing statement documents existing at that time and found challenges to about 750 Congressional enactments within those documents. For instance, Professor Kelley has found challenges to about 50 laws in a single bill signing statement (the statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004). By Professor Kelley's latest count, the documents called "signing statements" collectively challenge just over 800 Congressional enactments.
Many media and web sources have not updated their numbers since the early counts and do not distinguish between the signing statement documents and the number of laws challenged. Therefore, reports that there are 750 statements are common. At this point, it is probably a bit more accurate to say that, to date, 130 signing statements challenge about 800 federal laws.
c. In Sum
Treating the GPO's WCPD as authoritative, I conclude that 130 documents called signing statements have been issued since President Bush was inaugurated. This assumes that all of the signing statement documents have been made public, either on the White House website or in the GPO's WCPD. I have not counted the number of laws challenged in these documents. However, I have provided the exact text of all Congressional enactments affected by all 130 signing statement documents. The text of the affected enactments is available on the annotated signing statements page.
All of the signing statements that I have located are presented here (unannotated) or here (annotated). The index is here. If you believe you have located additional statements that do not appear here, please notify me. To see how I have defined and identified signing statements, click here.
4. Why is George Bush's use of presidential signing statements controversial? What are scholars, attorneys, government officials, and the media saying about presidential signing statements?
A. Read Widely
There is no simple way to summarize the concerns of scholars, lawyers, and members of Congress regarding George Bush's use of signing statements. Many have called the issue a constitutional crisis and believe that the Bush administration's use of signing statements is recalibrating the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government, or laying the groundwork for Supreme Court precedent that could rewrite the law controlling the respective powers of the three branches.
The best way to learn about this issue is to read; thus, the links below.
B. Core Concepts and Short Civics Lesson for Laypersons
But before you launch into these materials, be aware of an idea that continually surfaces in the writings to date. The idea is that President Bush is using signing statements to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress's powers. Our government has three branches. The Legislature's primary powers are to enact laws, and to control and disburse federal dollars. The Executive's primary powers are to administer (or carry out) the laws, and to command the military. The Judiciary's primary powers are to apply law to individual cases and controversies, and to ensure, by nullifying laws and government actions that offend the Constitution, that government officials do not exceed their powers. All three branches must, in practical and logistical terms, interpret the Constitution, case law, and statutes to perform their duties faithfully. However, final interpretation belongs to the Judiciary. The Constitution directly addresses the Executive's power regarding Congressional enactments that the Executive does not favor: the President can veto any law that Congress presents for signing. Congress has the power to override that veto by re-enacting the law by a super majority. (U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 7, Clause 3) Throughout our history, this has generally been the end of such controversies. Whenever Congress can muster a super majority to re-enact a law, the President must accept and administer that law, unless the courts rule that the law is unconstitutional. When a President fails to challenge in court a law that he dislikes, and fails to veto the law, and, instead, signs it -- while expressly stating that he is not bound by the law (or portions of it) or intends not to administer it as written -- has he seized power that our Constitution gives to the other branches of government? Has he defeated Congress's clear power to override vetoes? Can this be squared with the President's constitutional duty to "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed?" (U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 3)
Note, as you read the Bush signing statements, how many of them pertain to appropriations bills. Is President Bush using signing statements as a substitute for a presidential line item veto? Appropriations bills are the primary way that Congress exercises its spending power -- its power to control federal money. To many, these signing statements seem to bring the President's national security and defense powers (U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2) into stark conflict with both Congress's national security and defense powers (U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8) and Congress's appropriations powers.
Signing statements are one cornerstone of a controversial legal theory called "the unitary executive branch." In the 130 signing statements issued to date, President Bush makes 114 claims to the power of the "unitary executive." The Supreme Court case, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), is mentioned 35 times.
The possibility that a president is using signing statements to expand the power of the Executive at the expense of Congress is important enough that, on June 6, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) announced the formation of a "Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to examine constitutional and legal issues raised by presidents of the United States attaching legal interpretations to federal legislation they sign." The ABA Task Force is set to release its report on Monday, July 23, 2006. In addition, on June 27, 2006, the Judiciary Committee of the Republican-led United States Senate conducted hearings on President Bush's use of signing statements.
C. Are Only Two Branches Affected?
So far, the discussion about signing statements has revolved around the balance of power between the Executive and Congress. There is an emerging and separate discussion about diminishing the power of the Judiciary. This discussion often surfaces in comments about "court-stripping" and "judicial activism." As far as I know, no one has analyzed the effect of signing statements on judicial power. It should be done.
"Court-stripping" and attacks on "judicial activism" are separate issues from how much weight the judiciary gives to presidential signing statements. In the Hamdan decision, issued by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2006, three dissenters voiced strong opinions about the president's power to interpret Congress's enactments. Justice Scalia rebuked the majority for "ignoring" the president's signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act; Justice Thomas made strong statements about "Executive unity." Both justices read their dissents from the bench. Justice Alito also expressed strong support for a powerful Executive. It seems possible that the Supreme Court's view of the effect of presidential signing statements may come down to one vote on the Supreme Court.
D. Are Signing Statements the Whole Paper Trail of the Advancing Unitary Executive Theory?
The links below should demonstrate that signing statements are only one cornerstone of the "unitary executive theory."
At least one legal commentator claims that George W. Bush is also using Executive Orders to advance the idea of the unitary executive. I have not collected or reproduced Executive Orders because they are widely available, free, on the internet, and their legal import seems to be well-settled under law. For the text of Executive Orders at the White House, click here. They are also available at the GPO website in the Federal Register and in the WCPD. I am adding Executive Orders to the annotations if they are relevant to law affected by signing statements.
There are certainly other Executive branch documents that publicly advance the unitary executive. I am adding them to the annotations as I find them.
5. Essential Reading: The Links
If you find additional writings, please send them along.
American Bar Association (ABA)
Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities
Elisa Massimino and Avidan Cover, While Congress Slept (Winter, 2006)
Doug Cassel, Washington's "War Against Terrorism" and Human Rights: The View from Abroad (Winter, 2006)
News Release
ABA to Examine Constitutional, Legal Issues of Presidential Signing Statements (June 5, 2006)
ABA Journal
ABA Task Force To Examine Signing Statements: Group to Study Separation-of-Powers Implications of Presidential Comments on Laws (June, 2006)
Hearing of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Concerning Presidential Signing Statements
Committee Member Statement
Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, Hearing on Presidential Signing Statements (June 27, 2006)
Testimony and Statements Given to the Full Committee
Michelle E. Boardman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice (June 27, 2006)
Bruce Fein, Partner, Fein & Fein (June 27, 2006)
Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (June 27, 2006)
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (June 27, 2006)
Christopher S. Yoo, Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School (June 27, 2006)
Prepared Statement
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (June 27, 2006)
NEW
Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Vice President's Remarks to the Traveling Press, Air Force Two (en route to Muscat, Oman) (December 20, 2005) (speaking about his view of the Constitutional powers of the Presidency)
Vice President's Remarks at the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize Luncheon Followed by Q&A (June 19, 2006) (including remarks about the "unitary executive" and reference to House Minority Report on Iran-Contra)
Samuel Alito
Memorandum to the Department of Justice's Legal Strategy Working Group (Feb., 1986)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi)
Harman And Conyers Demand Administration Rescind Patriot Act “Signing Statement” (March 27, 2006)
Gary Hart
Rushing Towards a Constitutional Crisis (May, 2006)
Patrick Leahy, US Senator (D-Vt)
Leahy: President Strikes Again In PATRIOT Act Bill Signing Statement; Suggests He'll Pick And Choose Which Parts Of Law To Follow (March, 2006)
Edward Kennedy, US Senator (D-Mass)
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration (June 28, 2006)
United States Department of Justice
The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements: Memorandum for Bernard M. Nussbaum, Counsel to the President (Nov., 1993)
Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President (Jan., 2006)
NEW
William S. Sessions (comment in the San Antonio Express News) (Member of the ABA Task Force on Signing Statements)
Comment: Congress fails to rein in Bush (July 9, 2006)
NEW
Mickey Edwards (comment in The Nation) (Member of the ABA Task Force on Signing Statements)
Lawyers Challenge Bush (July 13, 2006)
The Erosion of American Constitutional Principle (July 18, 2006)
Phillip Cooper, Ph.D, Portland State University
George W. Bush, Edgar Allen Poe, and the Use and Abuse of Presidential Signing Statements (Sept., 2005)
Jack M. Balkin, Professor of Law, Yale University Law School
President Bush: "It's Not Law Unless I Say So (And Even If I Said So)" (May, 2006)
John Dean (at Findlaw.com)
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration (Jan., 2006)
Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11 (February 10, 2006)
Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
NEW
The problem with presidential signing statements (July 16, 2006)
Executive Signing Statements (June 16, 2006)
Jennifer Van Bergen
The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? (Jan., 2006)
Why the Bush Doctrine Violates the Constitution: The Unitary Executive (Jan., 2006)
Eric Alterman, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
Think Again: Signing the Constitution Away (May 3, 2006)
Law Review Articles
Tillman, A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia Was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha Was Wrongly Reasoned, 83 Tex L. Rev. 1265 (April, 2005) © University of Texas Law Review, 2005 (reprinted here with permission of the author and the University of Texas Law Review)
Yoo, Calabresi, & Colangelo, The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2001, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 601 (2005)
Christopher Kelley, Ph.D., Political Scientist, University of Miami
A Comparative Look at the Constitutional Signing Statement: The Case of Bush and Clinton (April, 2003)
The Unitary Executive and The Presidential Signing Statement (Doctoral Dissertation, 2003)
Rethinking Presidential Power -- The Unitary Executive and the George W. Bush Presidency (April, 2005)
Boston Globe (Charlie Savage)
NEW
Scalia's dissent gives 'signing statements' more heft (July 15, 2006)
Hearing set on signing statements: Senate panel will probe rationale for Bush actions (June 22, 2006)
Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges (June, 2006)
Cheney aide is screening legislation: Adviser seeks to protect Bush power (May, 2006)
Hearing vowed on Bush's powers: Senator [Arlen Specter] questions bypassing of laws (May, 2006)
Examples of the president's signing statements (April, 2006)
Bush challenges hundreds of laws: President cites powers of his office (April, 2006)
Chicago Tribune
Senate panel accuses Bush of diluting laws (June 26, 2006)
Dallas Morning News
Bush not shy in asserting right to defy law (May, 2006)
Der Spiegel (Germany)
Eavesdropping on America (May, 2006)
Forbes (AP's Laurie Kellerman)
Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress (June 27, 2006)
Jurist (University of Pennsylvania Law School)
Specter presses Bush administration on domestic spying, signing statements (June 16, 2006)
Knight-Ridder
Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power (Jan., 2006)
Monsters and Critics -- UK
American Bar Association to look at Bush exceptions to law (June 4, 2006)
National Public Radio (audio reports)
Bush and the Presidential Signing Statement: Political Scientist Andy Rudalevige explores Presidential Signing Statements (Jan.8, 2006)
Expanding Executive Power Via Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
Specter Challenges Presidential Signing Statements (June 28, 2006)
New York Times
Cheney Defends Eavesdropping Without Warrants (December 21, 2005)
New Yorker
The Hidden Power: The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror (July 3, 2006)
Cheney's Cheney (June 26, 2006)
Open Source, Chris Lydon (audio report)
Presidential Signing Statements (May, 2006)
NEW
PBS (Frontline)
Cheney In His Own Words: An overview of the vice president's views on presidential power and covert action that shows a remarkable consistency from the 1980s to today
San Francisco Chronicle
Feinstein accuses Bush of abusing presidential power 'Signing statements' usurp authority of Congress, she says (May, 2006)
U.S. News and World Report
Cheney's Guy: Barely known outside Washington's corridors of power, David Addington is the most powerful man you've never heard of (May, 2006)
Wall Street Journal
Court Pick Endorsed Theory of Far-Reaching Authority; Tenet of Bush White House (Jan., 2006)
Washington Post
A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed: Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries (Jan. 29, 2006)
Specter to grill officials on Bush ignoring laws (June 21, 2006)
Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power (Jan., 2006)
Andrew Cohen (Washington Post)
The Biggest Story You've Probably Missed (June 27, 2006)
Dahlia Lithwick, slate.com
Sign Here: Presidential signing statements are more than just executive branch lunacy (Jan., 2006)
Daily Kos
On Torture, ScAlito and Presidential Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
My Direct Democracy, David Singer
Cheney's Office Behind Unprecedented Signing Statements (May, 2006)
The Federalist Society at Yale Law School
Presidential Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
Jacob Weisberg, slate.com
The Power-Madness of King George: Is Bush turning America into an elective dictatorship? (Jan., 2006)
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15106725.htm http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12465 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/edwards http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072206A.shtml http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/aba-to-investigate-bush-signing.php http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/04/bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/ http://www.acsblog.org/separation-of-powers-2951-on-president-bushs-signing-statements.html http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015017.html http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-a-a-ajul11,0,4350989.story http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news060506.html http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060721/21signing.htm
07/24/2006 Jerry Earwood
Presidential Signing Statements
2001-2006
George W. Bush
FAQs
Read About Presidential Signing Statements
click to see date of last update
1. WHAT ARE PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS?
2. WHERE CAN SIGNING STATEMENTS BE FOUND?
2.a. Where can I get signing statements issued by presidents other than George W. Bush?
3. HOW MANY SIGNING STATEMENTS HAS GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED?
4. WHY IS GEORGE BUSH'S USE OF SIGNING STATEMENTS CONTROVERSIAL?
4.a. Read Widely
4.b. Core Concepts; Miniature Civics Lesson for Laypersons
4.c. Are Only Two Branches of Government Affected?
4.d. Are Signing Statements the Whole Paper Trail?
5. ESSENTIAL READING: THE LINKS
6. WHAT'S NEW ON THIS SITE?
1. What are presidential signing statements?
When a United States President signs or vetoes legislation enacted by Congress, he may issue a written statement commenting on his actions. Here's a very brief explanation from Cheryl Nyberg, at the University of Washington School of Law. Here's Wikipedia's entry. (Caveat: This Wikipedia entry erroneously says that a signing statement is a type of proclamation, even though presidential proclamations and presidential signing statements are two distinct types of documents. The article should have used a word that is not a legal term of art, such as "comment" or "pronouncement" to describe the statements, rather than "proclamation." Otherwise, the Wikipedia entry is good enough to get you started.)
2. Where can I find presidential signing statements?
This webpage exists because: (1) most non-lawyers find it difficult to locate the text of presidential signing statements; and (2) even lawyers will find this site more convenient than pecking about for the individual documents. Bloggers and media commentators have remarked on how difficult it is to locate presidential signing statements.
The University of Chicago Law Library has published a very helpful guide to locating presidential documents, including signing statements. However, most of the resources listed there are more easily accessed by attorneys than by members of the public. Most of the sources are inaccessible to laypersons because: (1) access to the source (e.g., print publications by West, or subscription-only online legal databases such as Westlaw or LEXIS-NEXIS) is expensive; or (2) a reader must both visit a law library and have the skills necessary to navigate legal materials; or, (3) when statements are online, they either are spread out among many documents or are not in searchable formats.
This website is certainly not the only place to locate signing statements. The American Presidency Project has the signing statements of all United States Presidents since 1929. (Thanks to Bill Ford, of the University of Chicago Law School and the ELS blog, for this link.) While the American Presidency Project provides text of the signing statements of all presidents, it does not provide the text of the laws affected by the signing statements. This website posts only George W. Bush's statements, but it also links directly to the full text of the Congressional enactments affected by George W. Bush's signing statements.
In sum, if you want to see Bill Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's signing statements and don't need access to the text of the affected laws, the American Presidency Project's website is a better choice. If you want to read George W. Bush's statement upon signing, for instance, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005" and to see the text of that law, use the annotations on this website. This website also places all of George W. Bush's signing statements in one large HTML document to make it easier to search the text of the signing statements (and text excerpted from the affected laws).
The signing statements are available, for free, on the official White House website. However, unlike Executive Orders, Proclamations, or press releases, presidential signing statements are not numbered, grouped, or neatly indexed on the White House website. Nor are they uniformly titled. Further, because the documents employ language that is typically familiar or useful only to scholars and attorneys, plain language word searches (such as "torture" or "Sarbanes-Oxley") do not bring up signing statements relating to that topic. Signing statements are presented in a more orderly fashion in the "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (WCPD)," published by the Government Printing Office (GPO). However, to locate all of the signing statements indexed in the WCPD between January of 2001 and June of 2006, one must examine about 290 files.
This website triple sources the signing statements: it sets out the full text of each signing statement, provides a link to the same statement at the White House website, and provides a link to the GPO's online WCPD. Triple-sourcing is provided for two reasons. First, it helps readers verify the text of the signing statements. Second, the exact number of statements is controversial, and providing all sources may help resolve the controversy.
The signing statements comment on legislation enacted by Congress and refer to the legislation by bill and resolution numbers. The statements can be difficult to understand without the laws to which they refer. Therefore, this website also provides links to the full text of all legislation subject to the signing statements. Links to the text of Congressional enactments appear only on the annotated signing statements page. The annotations also provide legal citations to the session laws (the United States Statutes at Large) and to public law numbers. This helps serious researchers: (a) track the laws in the three major codifications of federal statutes (i.e., the United States Code, the United States Code Annotated, and the United States Code Service), and (b) cite the laws.
3. How many statements has George W. Bush signed?
Two types of "metrics" have surfaced in news articles and web and media comments. One approach is to count the documents identified as "signing statements" that President Bush has issued when signing Congressional enactments. The second is to count the number of laws challenged in those documents.
a. Counting the Documents Identified as "Signing Statements"
Even this number is somewhat uncertain. On June 27, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings concerning George W. Bush's use of signing statement. Office of Legal Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman, who identified herself as the Department of Justice's expert on signing statements, represented the Bush administration at the hearing. Ms. Boardman's remarks to the Committee were somewhat unclear, but she seems to have indicated that there were 110 signing statements (or, by an alternate reading of her words, perhaps as many as 126). See, e.g., John Dean, The Bush Administration's Adversarial Relationship with Congress -- as Illustrated by Its Refusal to Even Provide the Number of Signing Statements Issued by President Bush, FindLaw (July 14, 2006). The question became a bit clouded by attempts to categorize the statements as "rhetorical," or "constitutional," etc. See also, Bush blocked probe, AG testifies: Senate examines wiretap program (Boston Globe, July 19, 2006) (Attorney General Gonzales contesting number of signing statements.)
By my count, on June 27, 2006, President Bush had issued 129 documents expressly identified as signing statements in the GPO's WCPD or on the White House website. I've found two signing statements (2001-02, 2004-17) that have been published in the WCPD but cannot be found at the White House website. I have found one document (2002-08) on the White House website that has not appeared in the WCPD. This statement (2002-08) is probably not a signing statement; it is difficult to say, because the White House does not title, segregate, or index signing statements in the uniform, systematic manner that it presents Executive Orders and Proclamations. The WCPD is systematic in its labeling and grouping, and it does not identify 2002-08 as a signing statement.
On July 11, 2006, George W. Bush signed an additional statement, bringing my count to 130 (assuming that 2002-08 is not a signing statement). I cannot assure the public that this is all of the statements. However, I am confident that I have found all of the signing statements that have been made public on the White House website or have appeared in the WCPD from January 19, 2001, through July 11, 2006.
b. Counting the Number of Laws Challenged in Signing Statements
A single signing statement may comment on several provisions of the Congressional enactment to which it pertains. Some people count each statutory (or non-codified) provision affected by a single document as a separate statement. Under this metric, a single document that challenges 40 laws is counted as 40 signing statements.
Months ago, Charlie Savage, of the Boston Globe, and Christopher Kelley, Ph.D, a political scientist at the University of Miami, examined the signing statement documents existing at that time and found challenges to about 750 Congressional enactments within those documents. For instance, Professor Kelley has found challenges to about 50 laws in a single bill signing statement (the statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004). By Professor Kelley's latest count, the documents called "signing statements" collectively challenge just over 800 Congressional enactments.
Many media and web sources have not updated their numbers since the early counts and do not distinguish between the signing statement documents and the number of laws challenged. Therefore, reports that there are 750 statements are common. At this point, it is probably a bit more accurate to say that, to date, 130 signing statements challenge about 800 federal laws.
c. In Sum
Treating the GPO's WCPD as authoritative, I conclude that 130 documents called signing statements have been issued since President Bush was inaugurated. This assumes that all of the signing statement documents have been made public, either on the White House website or in the GPO's WCPD. I have not counted the number of laws challenged in these documents. However, I have provided the exact text of all Congressional enactments affected by all 130 signing statement documents. The text of the affected enactments is available on the annotated signing statements page.
All of the signing statements that I have located are presented here (unannotated) or here (annotated). The index is here. If you believe you have located additional statements that do not appear here, please notify me. To see how I have defined and identified signing statements, click here.
4. Why is George Bush's use of presidential signing statements controversial? What are scholars, attorneys, government officials, and the media saying about presidential signing statements?
A. Read Widely
There is no simple way to summarize the concerns of scholars, lawyers, and members of Congress regarding George Bush's use of signing statements. Many have called the issue a constitutional crisis and believe that the Bush administration's use of signing statements is recalibrating the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government, or laying the groundwork for Supreme Court precedent that could rewrite the law controlling the respective powers of the three branches.
The best way to learn about this issue is to read; thus, the links below.
B. Core Concepts and Short Civics Lesson for Laypersons
But before you launch into these materials, be aware of an idea that continually surfaces in the writings to date. The idea is that President Bush is using signing statements to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress's powers. Our government has three branches. The Legislature's primary powers are to enact laws, and to control and disburse federal dollars. The Executive's primary powers are to administer (or carry out) the laws, and to command the military. The Judiciary's primary powers are to apply law to individual cases and controversies, and to ensure, by nullifying laws and government actions that offend the Constitution, that government officials do not exceed their powers. All three branches must, in practical and logistical terms, interpret the Constitution, case law, and statutes to perform their duties faithfully. However, final interpretation belongs to the Judiciary. The Constitution directly addresses the Executive's power regarding Congressional enactments that the Executive does not favor: the President can veto any law that Congress presents for signing. Congress has the power to override that veto by re-enacting the law by a super majority. (U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 7, Clause 3) Throughout our history, this has generally been the end of such controversies. Whenever Congress can muster a super majority to re-enact a law, the President must accept and administer that law, unless the courts rule that the law is unconstitutional. When a President fails to challenge in court a law that he dislikes, and fails to veto the law, and, instead, signs it -- while expressly stating that he is not bound by the law (or portions of it) or intends not to administer it as written -- has he seized power that our Constitution gives to the other branches of government? Has he defeated Congress's clear power to override vetoes? Can this be squared with the President's constitutional duty to "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed?" (U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 3)
Note, as you read the Bush signing statements, how many of them pertain to appropriations bills. Is President Bush using signing statements as a substitute for a presidential line item veto? Appropriations bills are the primary way that Congress exercises its spending power -- its power to control federal money. To many, these signing statements seem to bring the President's national security and defense powers (U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2) into stark conflict with both Congress's national security and defense powers (U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8) and Congress's appropriations powers.
Signing statements are one cornerstone of a controversial legal theory called "the unitary executive branch." In the 130 signing statements issued to date, President Bush makes 114 claims to the power of the "unitary executive." The Supreme Court case, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), is mentioned 35 times.
The possibility that a president is using signing statements to expand the power of the Executive at the expense of Congress is important enough that, on June 6, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) announced the formation of a "Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to examine constitutional and legal issues raised by presidents of the United States attaching legal interpretations to federal legislation they sign." The ABA Task Force is set to release its report on Monday, July 23, 2006. In addition, on June 27, 2006, the Judiciary Committee of the Republican-led United States Senate conducted hearings on President Bush's use of signing statements.
C. Are Only Two Branches Affected?
So far, the discussion about signing statements has revolved around the balance of power between the Executive and Congress. There is an emerging and separate discussion about diminishing the power of the Judiciary. This discussion often surfaces in comments about "court-stripping" and "judicial activism." As far as I know, no one has analyzed the effect of signing statements on judicial power. It should be done.
"Court-stripping" and attacks on "judicial activism" are separate issues from how much weight the judiciary gives to presidential signing statements. In the Hamdan decision, issued by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2006, three dissenters voiced strong opinions about the president's power to interpret Congress's enactments. Justice Scalia rebuked the majority for "ignoring" the president's signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act; Justice Thomas made strong statements about "Executive unity." Both justices read their dissents from the bench. Justice Alito also expressed strong support for a powerful Executive. It seems possible that the Supreme Court's view of the effect of presidential signing statements may come down to one vote on the Supreme Court.
D. Are Signing Statements the Whole Paper Trail of the Advancing Unitary Executive Theory?
The links below should demonstrate that signing statements are only one cornerstone of the "unitary executive theory."
At least one legal commentator claims that George W. Bush is also using Executive Orders to advance the idea of the unitary executive. I have not collected or reproduced Executive Orders because they are widely available, free, on the internet, and their legal import seems to be well-settled under law. For the text of Executive Orders at the White House, click here. They are also available at the GPO website in the Federal Register and in the WCPD. I am adding Executive Orders to the annotations if they are relevant to law affected by signing statements.
There are certainly other Executive branch documents that publicly advance the unitary executive. I am adding them to the annotations as I find them.
5. Essential Reading: The Links
If you find additional writings, please send them along.
American Bar Association (ABA)
Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities
Elisa Massimino and Avidan Cover, While Congress Slept (Winter, 2006)
Doug Cassel, Washington's "War Against Terrorism" and Human Rights: The View from Abroad (Winter, 2006)
News Release
ABA to Examine Constitutional, Legal Issues of Presidential Signing Statements (June 5, 2006)
ABA Journal
ABA Task Force To Examine Signing Statements: Group to Study Separation-of-Powers Implications of Presidential Comments on Laws (June, 2006)
Hearing of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Concerning Presidential Signing Statements
Committee Member Statement
Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, Hearing on Presidential Signing Statements (June 27, 2006)
Testimony and Statements Given to the Full Committee
Michelle E. Boardman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice (June 27, 2006)
Bruce Fein, Partner, Fein & Fein (June 27, 2006)
Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (June 27, 2006)
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (June 27, 2006)
Christopher S. Yoo, Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School (June 27, 2006)
Prepared Statement
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (June 27, 2006)
NEW
Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Vice President's Remarks to the Traveling Press, Air Force Two (en route to Muscat, Oman) (December 20, 2005) (speaking about his view of the Constitutional powers of the Presidency)
Vice President's Remarks at the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize Luncheon Followed by Q&A (June 19, 2006) (including remarks about the "unitary executive" and reference to House Minority Report on Iran-Contra)
Samuel Alito
Memorandum to the Department of Justice's Legal Strategy Working Group (Feb., 1986)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi)
Harman And Conyers Demand Administration Rescind Patriot Act “Signing Statement” (March 27, 2006)
Gary Hart
Rushing Towards a Constitutional Crisis (May, 2006)
Patrick Leahy, US Senator (D-Vt)
Leahy: President Strikes Again In PATRIOT Act Bill Signing Statement; Suggests He'll Pick And Choose Which Parts Of Law To Follow (March, 2006)
Edward Kennedy, US Senator (D-Mass)
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration (June 28, 2006)
United States Department of Justice
The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements: Memorandum for Bernard M. Nussbaum, Counsel to the President (Nov., 1993)
Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President (Jan., 2006)
NEW
William S. Sessions (comment in the San Antonio Express News) (Member of the ABA Task Force on Signing Statements)
Comment: Congress fails to rein in Bush (July 9, 2006)
NEW
Mickey Edwards (comment in The Nation) (Member of the ABA Task Force on Signing Statements)
Lawyers Challenge Bush (July 13, 2006)
The Erosion of American Constitutional Principle (July 18, 2006)
Phillip Cooper, Ph.D, Portland State University
George W. Bush, Edgar Allen Poe, and the Use and Abuse of Presidential Signing Statements (Sept., 2005)
Jack M. Balkin, Professor of Law, Yale University Law School
President Bush: "It's Not Law Unless I Say So (And Even If I Said So)" (May, 2006)
John Dean (at Findlaw.com)
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration (Jan., 2006)
Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11 (February 10, 2006)
Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
NEW
The problem with presidential signing statements (July 16, 2006)
Executive Signing Statements (June 16, 2006)
Jennifer Van Bergen
The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? (Jan., 2006)
Why the Bush Doctrine Violates the Constitution: The Unitary Executive (Jan., 2006)
Eric Alterman, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
Think Again: Signing the Constitution Away (May 3, 2006)
Law Review Articles
Tillman, A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia Was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha Was Wrongly Reasoned, 83 Tex L. Rev. 1265 (April, 2005) © University of Texas Law Review, 2005 (reprinted here with permission of the author and the University of Texas Law Review)
Yoo, Calabresi, & Colangelo, The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2001, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 601 (2005)
Christopher Kelley, Ph.D., Political Scientist, University of Miami
A Comparative Look at the Constitutional Signing Statement: The Case of Bush and Clinton (April, 2003)
The Unitary Executive and The Presidential Signing Statement (Doctoral Dissertation, 2003)
Rethinking Presidential Power -- The Unitary Executive and the George W. Bush Presidency (April, 2005)
Boston Globe (Charlie Savage)
NEW
Scalia's dissent gives 'signing statements' more heft (July 15, 2006)
Hearing set on signing statements: Senate panel will probe rationale for Bush actions (June 22, 2006)
Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges (June, 2006)
Cheney aide is screening legislation: Adviser seeks to protect Bush power (May, 2006)
Hearing vowed on Bush's powers: Senator [Arlen Specter] questions bypassing of laws (May, 2006)
Examples of the president's signing statements (April, 2006)
Bush challenges hundreds of laws: President cites powers of his office (April, 2006)
Chicago Tribune
Senate panel accuses Bush of diluting laws (June 26, 2006)
Dallas Morning News
Bush not shy in asserting right to defy law (May, 2006)
Der Spiegel (Germany)
Eavesdropping on America (May, 2006)
Forbes (AP's Laurie Kellerman)
Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress (June 27, 2006)
Jurist (University of Pennsylvania Law School)
Specter presses Bush administration on domestic spying, signing statements (June 16, 2006)
Knight-Ridder
Bush using a little-noticed strategy to alter the balance of power (Jan., 2006)
Monsters and Critics -- UK
American Bar Association to look at Bush exceptions to law (June 4, 2006)
National Public Radio (audio reports)
Bush and the Presidential Signing Statement: Political Scientist Andy Rudalevige explores Presidential Signing Statements (Jan.8, 2006)
Expanding Executive Power Via Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
Specter Challenges Presidential Signing Statements (June 28, 2006)
New York Times
Cheney Defends Eavesdropping Without Warrants (December 21, 2005)
New Yorker
The Hidden Power: The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror (July 3, 2006)
Cheney's Cheney (June 26, 2006)
Open Source, Chris Lydon (audio report)
Presidential Signing Statements (May, 2006)
NEW
PBS (Frontline)
Cheney In His Own Words: An overview of the vice president's views on presidential power and covert action that shows a remarkable consistency from the 1980s to today
San Francisco Chronicle
Feinstein accuses Bush of abusing presidential power 'Signing statements' usurp authority of Congress, she says (May, 2006)
U.S. News and World Report
Cheney's Guy: Barely known outside Washington's corridors of power, David Addington is the most powerful man you've never heard of (May, 2006)
Wall Street Journal
Court Pick Endorsed Theory of Far-Reaching Authority; Tenet of Bush White House (Jan., 2006)
Washington Post
A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed: Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries (Jan. 29, 2006)
Specter to grill officials on Bush ignoring laws (June 21, 2006)
Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power (Jan., 2006)
Andrew Cohen (Washington Post)
The Biggest Story You've Probably Missed (June 27, 2006)
Dahlia Lithwick, slate.com
Sign Here: Presidential signing statements are more than just executive branch lunacy (Jan., 2006)
Daily Kos
On Torture, ScAlito and Presidential Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
My Direct Democracy, David Singer
Cheney's Office Behind Unprecedented Signing Statements (May, 2006)
The Federalist Society at Yale Law School
Presidential Signing Statements (Jan., 2006)
Jacob Weisberg, slate.com
The Power-Madness of King George: Is Bush turning America into an elective dictatorship? (Jan., 2006)
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15106725.htm http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12465 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/edwards http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072206A.shtml http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/aba-to-investigate-bush-signing.php http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/04/bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/ http://www.acsblog.org/separation-of-powers-2951-on-president-bushs-signing-statements.html http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015017.html http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-a-a-ajul11,0,4350989.story http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news060506.html http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060721/21signing.htm
07/24/2006 Jerry Earwood
posted by Mark Coomes at 9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home