Power play: Congress should rein in president's signing statements
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The Constitution commands that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." There is no exception for laws with which the president disagrees.

Despite this, some presidents have issued statements when they have signed bills into law declaring that they will not enforce certain provisions. This ploy to ignore the law-making authority of Congress places in jeopardy the separation of powers that underlies the Constitution. It also places the president above the law.

President George W. Bush has used signing statements far more than any other president, a record 800 times to date. Congress and the courts must rein in this presidential power grab. To do otherwise would be to court tyranny.

But don't take our word for it. A bipartisan task force of the American Bar Association has issued a unanimous report recommending that Congress pass a law enabling it to sue the president when he "claims the authority . . . to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed or interprets a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress."

To his credit, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said he will introduce such a bill.

The Constitution gives the president considerable influence over legislation because he can veto any bill. But the Constitution also is clear that he may not veto parts of a bill. It's an all-or-nothing proposition, and presidents since George Washington have understood that. If Congress can muster two-thirds votes in both houses, it can override his veto.

Bush, however, has vetoed only a single bill in his tenure so far. Instead, he has issued signing statements outlining his interpretation of the law in question or stating his unwillingness to enforce parts with which he disagrees. He has been particularly eager to arrogate to himself powers in national security matters based on his constitutional role as commander in chief.

But as the ABA panel noted, "Because the 'take care' obligation of the president requires him to faithfully execute all laws, his obligation is to veto bills he believes are unconstitutional. He may not sign them into law and then emulate King James II by refusing to enforce them."

Article Tools

Enter a search phrase.

Specify a Range

From  to

 

 
Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.