Arlen Is Correct
The Obama administration portrayed its approach [to presidential signing statements] as a major departure from that of Mr. Bush. But Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, disagreed, saying Mr. Obama was “wrong” to embrace the view that signing statements can be constitutionally legitimate.
“I think the Constitution is explicit as to how you handle these situations, and if the president thinks something is unconstitutional, then he ought to veto it,” said Mr. Specter, an outspoken critic of Mr. Bush’s signing statements.
He called the practice a “dodge” and “a disregard for the separation of powers and co-equal branches of government.”
“It’s just insulting,” Mr. Specter said, “and there is no reason why we can’t follow the Constitution even if it takes a few days more.”
Here, here.
posted by QueensGuy @ 7:33 AM
4 Comments:
I've only followed this issue from the headlines- has a signing statement ever been held to hold the force of law? Does it represent anything more than a President's opinion on the likely constitutionality of a law. If the executive branch violates a duly enacted law, aren't there judicial remedies available? (I admit this is more problematic if the executive branch ignores or refuses to enforce a law, but having limited resources, isn't that a chance we always take with new laws?)
If the executive branch violates a duly enacted law, aren't there judicial remedies available?
A private right of action surely should exist if that violation (or failure to act) affected your rights. The only litigated cases where the signing statement claimed unconstitutionality &/or unenforceability that I'm aware of are:
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 255-56 (1994) (President attached a statement to his veto of legislation interpreting the retroactivity of the Civil Rights Act. Upon review of subsequent amended legislation, the Court refused to give effect to the President's understanding because it was unclear where the compromise had been struck among competing congressional interpretations)
Petitti v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel., No. 89-3951, 1992 WL 359643, at *2-3 (D. Mass. Nov. 16, 1992) (refusing to rule in favor of the President's interpretation of retroactivity on the basis that a compromise bill excluded a provision which the President had cited in a signing statement as the reason for his veto of the earlier bill)
Crumley v. Del. State Coll., 797 F. Supp. 341, 346, 348 n.8 (D. Del. 1992) (finding that any inference that could be drawn from removal of a provision after the President's veto was negated by the fact that Congress did not adopt the President's proposed legislation)
McCullough v. Consol. Rail Corp., 785 F. Supp. 1309, 1313-14 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (ruling in favor of the President with regard to retroactivity, but largely because the President's interpretation concurred with that of one of the bill's sponsors as well as some other members of Congress)
Oh, and just to give credit where due, my source for those cases and parentheticals was "A FAILED ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON TORTURE: THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS UNDER THE PAQUETE HABANA," Note, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 105 (2006)
In practice, the Congress proposes, the President disposes. Whether or not there's an official signing statement, the President (not unlike a prosecutor) has leeway in deciding how and when to interpret a law. This doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants, but it does make me wonder whether signing statements make any difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home