Talk:Signing statement

POLL: Disambiguation page for signing statement vs. signing statement (United States)?

At least one editor feels signing statement should concern a global phenomenon of signing statements, whereas another (myself) feels that the article's content is in practice exclusively American. The obvious solution is to copy this page's content to Signing Statement (United States) and to re-write a Signing Statment as a disambiguation page: with a link to Signing Statement (United States) for information concerning American practice (including the current controversy), and links to pages for such other nations as have them. Any thoughts on this? rewinn 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. The article would have to be watered down to the point of irrelevance if it were to be kept strictly international. Is there any ambiguity with regard to state governors or city officials within the US? Might as well separate that if there is while we're at it. Ojcit 06:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no examples of signing statements by other than US Presidents have been presented, the globalized content is non-notable and has been deleted. Feel free to restore if examples are presented. rewinn 06:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's confusing to have this page. It implies that "Signing Statements" occur elsewhere in the world when even the US Signing Statements page states no other executives utilize Signing Statements. Furthermore the proper term seems to be associated exclusively with the interpretation of American constitutional law by the executive branch of American government. MM962 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Full Text of George W. Bush's signing statements now available

I have posted a webpage that provides the full text of all of George W. Bush's signing statements, as well the text of all laws referred to in the signing statements. Reading about the signing statements is helpful. Reading the signing statements, themselves, seems equally important for anyone who wants to speak authoritatively about them. I propose that these links should be added to the Wikipedia entry:

Annotated text http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/signstateann.htm FAQ page http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/FAQs.htm Unannotated text http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/pressignstate.htm

Good idea. While it would be 'better' to use a (no offense intended) more well-known site (perhaps Cornell Law School, or Findlaw), something is better than nothing. rewinn 06:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- which is why I actually added a link to the homepage of the Coherent Babble database a couple of days ago. ;) Look for it as the fourth external link. (I was at a different IP at the time.) 67.33.138.73 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way: if the parent comment came from the creator of that signing satement collection, let me just state for the record: you are awesome, sir/madam. 67.33.138.73 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Article title

I suggest this article should renamed to "Signing statement". This follows Wiki standards (compare Executive order to Presidential Executive Order) and also conforms to current usage where "signing statement", without the prefix Presidential and not as a proper noun, is used in the media. The statements issued by the US President carry the title "Statement by the President" Rillian 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and moved. — BrianSmithson 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

"Critics accuse George W. Bush of using signing statements to place the President above the law. However, Bush supporters note that Clinton made extensive use of signing statements as well. [1]"

Since when does Clinton using signing statements make them right? Also, Bush has used them a lot more. (according to Time) 66.41.59.162 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any indication Clinton used them in the same way Bush uses them, as effectively a veto? Esquizombi 14:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of signing statements as line item veto was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York.[1] Nomen Nescio 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That case dealt with the actual line item veto law, not signing statements, as the first sentence of the article you linked explains.

To declare signing statements "effectively a veto" seems a bit premature, as the "History in the United States" section explains. --Ajdz 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Effectively they state that they are a veto (while avoiding the word itself), but whether they actually work as one de jure and de facto seems to be unknown. Esquizombi 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a quote from a Clinton administration memo[2] that I think answers your original question, or at least that the use to object to unconstitutional parts of legislation is nothing new.

I also did a little reorganizing so my reference to "History in the United States" above would now be to "Legal significance". There was too much overlap with the presidential usage section. The main message of this article should probably be that we don't know the actual future effect of signing statements. --Ajdz 17:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the Executive branch can state its view or belief that a certain application of law would be unconstitutional, but it cannot declare something to actually be unconstitutional AFAIK. Increasingly, I fear this distinction has been or will be lost. Thanks for linking that document though, which is interesting—but disturbing—reading. Esquizombi 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Constitutionality is usually understood as decided by the courts. I was trying to avoid verbose disclaimers, but I did just now add the word potentially to this sentence: "A November 3, 1993 memo from the Clinton Justice Department explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation" --Ajdz 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's good, thanks. Esquizombi 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How many signing statements by GWB?

"As of 2006, George W. Bush, the current President, has issued over 500 signing statements." vs "However, Bush is challenging statues at a rate more than 2.5 times greater than his father with over 108 signing statements presenting over 750 different constitutional challenges as of April 2006."

Could it be that some are referring to individual documents as ss while others are referring to statements within those documents? Esquizombi 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article that included the 750 amount was counting the number of new laws or sections of law that were challenged within a signing statement. A signing statement could challenge one or more statutes, so the count of challenges would be greater than the number of statements. Also, Chris Kelly, the political scientist who has analyzed signing statements groups them into three categories: rhetorical ("this is a great law"), political ("this law meets the need of our unions") and consitutional ("I'm signing this law, but won't enforce section 2 because it is an unconstitutional infringement on my powers as commander-in-chief"). Any data sourced from a Kelly document will generally only refer to consitutional statements. I don't think we yet have a clear count of total statements issued by president and are comparing apples to oranges in some of the counts. Rillian 12:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've borowed some of this for the article, since it's a very suitable explanation. If you could cite it, that'd be nice. --Barberio 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clear this up, but I didn't notice the number 108 up there until now. I think there will be two numbers - a number of statements and a (larger) number of challenges. I'm just not sure what those are any more.--Ajdz 06:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Boston Globe graphic claims that Clinton challenged 140 statues - yet the Kelley 2003 paper says "Clinton used the constitutional signing statement less than his predecessor (105 to 146)". However, footnote 88 says he also he issued 265 in toto - but the remainder were rhetorical. I'm inclined to split Clinton's number out as 105, but I don't know how GW Bush's contributions should then be counted. --moof 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that since Constitutional Signing Statements can be vauge, it is dificult to address how many statutes they may influence. So there is no real quantifiable and stable metric that can be used. I'll write up something to discuss this on the article. --Barberio 13:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is where the split between various types of signing statements created by political scientists comes into play. Based on your quotes, I would say the Clinton issued 265 total signing statements, of which 105 included constitutional challenges. Those 105 constitutional statements challenged 140 different statutes. We need to find a count of total statements by president and then add the statutes challenged counts in table for better comparison. Rillian 01:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlimited executive power?

Nice discussion on the topic.[3] Nomen Nescio 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"lack persuasive authority" segment copyvio

After searching for the quotes in this section, I discovered that the whole paragraph had been lifted from an NYT article. I've deleted it from the article. [4]

The paragraph was uncited, and vauge about the cases involved. And I've had little luck finding the orginal cases. So I suggest we keep the content of the segment out of the article untill we have a second source to provide us the details. --Barberio 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal significance

There was a reference to "toleration" of signing statements that didn't seemed sourced or npov; just what after all would be toleration of a signing statement and who would be doing it? I deleted the text but would be interested in discussing, if anyone cares.

There was also language about the signing statements as notice of executive intent, which seemed relevant although not necessarily of legal significance. It might be better suited to its own section, since practice significant <> legal significance. rewinn 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV the controversy

The controversy over signing statements must be reported here from a neutral point of view (npov). That's why I heavily editted the most recently contributions. If you feel strongly about signing statements, fine, that's a GOOD thing (and I agree with you ... see my own "signing statements" contributions on wikithepresident.org ) ... but wikipedia is not a blog. If your contributions are not npov , they'll go away and you've wasted your time. You can be more persuasive with npov anyway. rewinn 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep Introduction Short

I heavily trimmed the intro paragraph because it had a bunch of stuff repeated in the text, e.g. the grounds of the current controvery. Controversies should be mentioned in the intro, then fleshed out in the text. There was also some stuff implying that signing statements were something well known outside the USA, but there's no evidence for that given here (... I'm not saying they don't exist ... but if they are used in other countries, then such use should be mentioned in the article...). If this is a purely USA phenomenon, that should be mentioned briefly. Also, the use of the word "prerogative" (however it may be spelled) is POV; either "asserted perogative" would be more npov; anyway, it's a level of detail that belongs in the discussion of the controversy, not in the intro rewinn 06:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just don't leave too much information out. I like the shorter introduction, but it never mentions that signing statements often show how the president intends for the executive branch to interpret/implement the law. I'm restoring a phrase to that effect, which I think is sufficiently NPOV, now. 67.33.138.73 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The porrage was too hot, then it was too cold; now it is just right ;-) rewinn 02:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

INS v. Chadha

Many recent United States signing statements cite the U.S. Supreme Court case INS v. Chadha. Does anyone know anything about how this case is being applied to signing statements? I don't understand the applicability. This might make a good addition to this article, the INS v. Chadha article, or both. --Takeel 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand why this case is cited now. I would like to add something to the article about it for the community's review in the near future. --Takeel 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I would like to know (but too busy to do the research). Thanks 4 taking the lead on this! rewinn 02:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find citations to support my suspicion regarding this, so I can't add anything to the article regarding it. --Takeel 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

INS v. Chadha held that Congress cannot constitutionally pass a law that purports to allow it to veto actions by the executive (known as a "legislative veto"). Nonetheless, Congress still frequently includes such provisions in large bills, and presidents usually either ignore them or issue signing statements announcing that they will give those provisions no effect. These are often cited as uncontroversial uses of signing statements because such provisions have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Rossarroz (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If no examples of signing statement outside USA...

... then the article is inherently USA-centric and there's no need to word it as if this were a common practice. After all, there are few or no other democracies in which a president signs bills to make them become law. All other democracies (except perhaps Liberia) use a parliamentary form of government for which no signing ceremoney occurs. rewinn 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia's own page on President "Many South - & Central American (taking their cue from the USA) and African republics also follow this model.", in adition to the French system, which provides a parlimentary system that still grants powers, such as requiring signing into law, to the President. A 'Signing Statement' is simply a proclimation that coincides with signing into law, so this seems not to be a phenominon that could be unique to the US. Declaring that it is would be seems to be representing a national POV, while simple neutral statement of the defenition is less of a bias. Since you support a proposition that a non-neutral wording is more accurate, then the onus is on you to prove your case that signing statements are exclusive to the US. For instance, I would require you to demonstrate that Hugo Chávez has not made rhetorical proclomations upon signing items into law.

You may be making the mistake of asuming all Signing Statments are Constitutional Challenge Signing Statements. The use of Signing Statements as Constitutional Challenges and a replacement for Veto *may* be unique to the US, but I'm reluctant to say so either way in the article until provided with some research.

Restoring the globalised version. --Barberio 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't get into an edit war over a minor point. Please cite a significant signing statement by Hugo Chavez or other president outside the USA, without giving undue weight to proclamations of little significance. Alternatively, if proclamations of little significance are to be included in this article, it should be expanded to include other such proclamations, e.g. National Pickle Month. rewinn 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you think this article is about? The article is about the practice of signing statements in general, not solely on specifics. The weight of any statements themselves are insignificant to how the practice operates. As mentioned, rhetorical signing statements are purely without weight, but are still signing statements. That the practice is available to other presidential systems is reason on it's own to globalize this article. The onus is still upon you to demonstrate why this article is inherently US specific. (Incidently, national pickle month would be a normal presidential proclamation or order, and unrelated to signing statements.) --Barberio 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Until this article cites at least one case of a signing statement outside the USA, it concerns an American phenomenon. This is not a question of the onus being on me, or you, or anyone. This is an encyclopedia, and the onus is on the article to be coherent. Defining the article to be one thing (global in nature) while the content is another (USA-centric) is not encyclopedic. rewinn 16:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The defenition of Signing Statement applies to all presidential systems with signed in statutes. It is perfectly coherent to refer to it in a neutral globalized way, and make specific mention of national issues. That it's most notable use is in the US does not in any way make it's defenition US only. --Barberio 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have declined to offer evidence. Until your claim is sourced, it is not encyclopdiac. At best, it is original research, not allowed in wikipedia. However, I will not revert until the poll has had time to allow other editors to chime in as to whether Signing Statement is sufficiently global in nature to warrant a separate Signing Statements in the United States entry or the like. You may wish to enter your opinion in the poll; it appears you favor a distinction between the two sets of information but I won't assume. rewinn 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys have hit the nail on the head, and the reason the scope of the article is difficult to define is that the jury is still out as to what a signing statement is or is not. The main reason the subject is notable is because of the emerging (American) controversy. While there may be similar procedures elsewhere, this article only pays lip service to them, and in the absense of much editorial interest (from what I've seen on this page at least) on the international viewpoint of the topic, a US-only designation is IMHO appropriate. Ojcit 06:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To follow up: two months have gone by and no examples of non-USA signing statements have been produced. Therefore, global signing statements are not notable and references to them have been deleted. The matter may be reconsidered when examples are produced, but until then, the article is better focussing on the notable material. rewinn 06:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit was unwise in that it 1) focused 'Signing statement' solely on constitutional signing statements, 2) ignored that as a matter of process other similar presidentially systems will of course have signing statements of the political kind. I don't think it'll confuse anyone to use a more neutral lead, and still can't understand your objection or claims that it's unencyclopedic. --Barberio 13:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And as an example of a notable signing statement, I submit Robespierre. Particularly his deist proclamation following the Convention declaration of national deisim. --Barberio 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And a more modern use - [[5]], where President Jacques Chirac where he accepted a law for signing, but made stated reservations in it's implementation. --Barberio 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Robespierre example is from 1794, hardly relevant to current signing statement practice. The Chirac example is not of a signing statement, but of a President offering to negotiate a change in the law. RTFA. The objection to the "globalised" version is that there are no notable examples of signing statements outside of the USA.

The introduction should concern the notable aspects of the article's subject matter. A "globalized" introduction does the opposite. What is most notable about signing statements is the current controversy about American signing statements; if you think this is controversial, feel free to add a controversy tag.

The non-notable aspects of signing statements from 1794 may be put into their own section in the body of the article --- feel free to do so. They are dealt with sufficiently in the introduction by: While it is in theory possible for other executives to issue signing statements, there is no record of notable signing statements by anyone other than an American president.

To delete from the introduction the short description of the ongoing controversy is NPOV. Please don't do that. We may discuss whether a statement from 1794 should be in this article but the notability of the current controversy is beyond dispute. rewinn 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

rewinn 06:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem intent on ignoring the Jacques Chirac example which came from *last year*! Again, this article is *not* about 'Notable uses of the Signing Statement', or 'Current uses of the Signing Statement', it is a description of what a Signing Statement is.

Maybe you would prefer it if we retitled to 'Use of the signing statement in the US'? --Barberio 13:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Notability is a requirement for inclusion in wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability
• The article about Chirac does not mention a signing statement. Neither Chirac nor the author's article nor anyone on the planet (on the evidence) call it that. See Wikipedia:No_Original_Research
• Nothing in the article concerns a signing statement from any jurisdiction except the office of the President of the United States. That might justify renaming the article Signing Statements (United States) and making Signing Statements a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. However, there would be nothing to disambiguate to. But go ahead, if you wish; I have no real objection on that account
• See also comments by Ojcit on 06:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) .... rewinn 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

development: ABA report completed

• [6] Kevin Baas^talk 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unitary Executive Theory

On July 26, 2006, I amended this paragraph:

"This statement specifically refers to a unitary executive theory, under which the President asserts broad authority to use his independent judgment to interpret and apply the law. The President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved the right to waive the "torture ban", effectively re-writing the law passed by Congress.[5]"

to reflect the fact that it is the president, not just the commander-in-chief claiming independent authority under unitary executive theory to interpret and apply the law. I also tried to clarify that the president is asserting this authority - he does not possess this authority as Marbury, Youngstown, Nixon and Hamdan, etc have made clear.

September 29 edits--

An anonymous user made changes to the article today that helped it in spots, but also seemed politically tendentious (e.g., describing signing statements as "simply a written expression of the President's interpretation of legislation which may be reviewed in future court cases just as Congressional intentions are determined by examining the legislative history and record of debate in Congress.") I want to find a way to incorporate the good bits without injecting more PoV into the article; anyone have any thoughts? --GGreeneVa 01:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The text you quote gives undue weight to a proposition for which there is no evidence: that the President's belief of the meaning of a law has any weight in the making of the law. To the contrary; the U.S. Constitution states that Congress makes the law, not the executive. The phrase was properly deleted. rewinn 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely right -- that's why I reverted it. But there were some other speck-sized edits that I was more on the fence about -- take a look at the changes the user made, and tell me what you think. --GGreeneVa 17:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

• Material in italics had been added: "Signing statements may be viewed as a type of executive order or simply a written expression of the President's interpretation of legislation which may be reviewed in future court cases just as Congressional intentions are determined by examining the legislative history and record of debate in Congress. That material is incorrect and unsourced as far as it refers to the weight of signing statements in court decisions, and irrelevant to the article otherwise. The reversion was well done.
• The deleted material"The President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved the right to waive the "torture ban," effectively re-writing the law passed by Congress." is factual, sourced, and notable. The restoration was well done.

You should get a user page! rewinn 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some html errors

The entire "Presidential Usage" section under references has numerous html errors, and the edit link doesn't seem to actually let me see the offending code. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.138.97.50 (talk • contribs) .

Would you mind sharing some specifics? --Takeel 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Types of signing statements

The articles lists the following 3 types of signing statements.

• Rhetorical, "this is a great law"
• Political, "this law meets the need of working families"
• Constitutional, "I'm signing this law, but won't enforce section 2"

Would someone mind explaining the difference between rhetorical and political? From this description, they seem the same. Pointlessness 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Christopher Kelley article, from which this 3-way distinction appears to come, does not seem quite to agree with our article in its current state. It describes

• "Constitutional" = pointing out constitutional defects
• "Political" = target audience are the executive agencies and the purpose is to define vague terms
• "Rhetorical" = target audience is political constituencies and the purpose is to mobelize them in support.

Some article re-write might be in order. rewinn 17:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take up my challenge. I think I captured the essence of Kelley's definition. But who knows? rewinn 02:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone found examples of each type. For instance "Harry Truman's signing statement for the law establishing Nation Beet Awareness Week, which stated "beet framers [sic] are the backbone of the American root crop industry" is an example of a political signing statement." And so forth. (Except, use real examples, unlike Nation Beet Awareness Week)

Truman should have written that "beet farmers are the root of American agriculture." They would have laughed themselves red in the face. Anyway, it was sweet of him to recognize their contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libertylaw (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I tried to make a few stylistic changes to this section to tighten it up a bit through elimination of redundancy. Still, it seems to me that the sentence following the definitions could confuse the reader. The use of "'Constitutional'-type" seems to indicate a deviation—if only slight—from the definition of "Constitutional" just given, and the rest of the sentence muddies matters by giving what purports to be a definition for this deviation. I suspect whoever wrote the sentence, though, meant to say that the phrase "signing statement" (SS) today refers to the "Constitutional" usage because of the current controversy surrounding the administration's (ab)use of SSs. (Also, the phrase "In recent usage" doesn't clarify when this usage started or why the phrase has come to focus on this one SS type.)

I also have reservations about the definition of Constitutional SSs: they "[assert] that [a] law is constitutionally defective to guide executive agencies in limiting its implementation." First, I wonder if this is completely accurate as far as "limiting" goes. Is it not possible that a president has actually expanded a law's reach for the executive branch so that a president must, say, protect some minority group (perhaps even from future executive power) or keep track of some economic measure that could damage a president's credibility on fiscal issues? Granted, such uses have probably occurred extremely rarely (if at all), but I think it's a possibility. And probably my examples aren't terribly good. But maybe someone out there knows or would have the time and ability to do the needed research.

Second, the definition as it stands could be interpreted in at least two different (and diametrically opposed) ways:

1. Constitutional SSs assert that a law [or a provision thereof] is very likely to be unconstitutional, so these SSs tell executive agencies that they do not have to follow the directions of Congress to implement or enforce them;
2. Constitutional SSs assert that a law [or a provision thereof] does not give any constitutional power to executive agencies that would allow them to exempt themselves from implementing or enforcing them.

The problem lies in whether one reads the sentence as "Constitutional SSs assert that a law is constitutionally defective" + "[in order] to guide ..." or as "Constitutional SSs assert that" + "a law is constitutionally defective to guide ..."

To my mind, the problems don't end there. Not only is there no mention in the definition of only parts of a law being subject to Constitutional SSs. It also seems to me that "assert", "defective", "guide", and "implementation" are all a little too vague. I suspect different presidents "assert" or "guide" differently. Some would "assert" when others would "demand"; some would "guide" when others would "bring to heel". Maybe more history is needed here. "Defective" and "implementation" also seem to tone down or skirt what is actually happening. I suggest using words that are less euphemistic and closer to terms most know when referring to the executive branch, such as replacing "implementation" with "enforcement". Others out there probably have better ideas than mine and could certainly speak more to effecting the proper balance among popular knowledge, correct political science terminology, and NPOV.

To clear up some of these points, it may be a good idea to reverse the order of the SS types so that the most important kind, the Constitutional, is last in the list. Right after that, the subtleties of the Constitutional SS definition could be explored in a way that also incorporates the information about the "recent" usage of the phrase "signing statement".

Whew! Thanks for reading! Scrawlspacer 06:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Enabling Act

I find the link to Hitler's Enabling Act to be very POV. Now, I am no big fan of Bush or his use of signing statements, but the comparison to Hitler's grab for power looks silly to anyone who has seriously studied presidential signing statements. They both increase the power of the executive branch, but that is where their similarities end-- signing statements are not legally binding, and their use is very limited, whereas the Enabling Act allowed Hitler virtually limitless, completely legal power. If there were 200 different links to pages, I would say that the Enabling Act could be one of them, since it at least marginally related to the topic. But with just three links, making one of them an unwarranted Nazi comparison seems pretty POV to me. If you want to put some links that are much more relevant, try Presentment Clause, Unitary Executive, Executive (government), Line-Item Veto or Marbury V. Madison. 209.150.51.223 08:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Now that you lay it out, I agree. I had assumed that the link was to something like Enabling act (United States) instead of the Nazi link; the latter would be not only POV but irrelevant to the article. Let me encourage you to get a user logon since your contribution is helpful. rewinn 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two articles in wikipedia Enabling_act (the concepts) and Enabling_Act the specific event in Germany. The intention was the former not the latter. The Nazi reference is POV, and a typo. I have fixed the reference and added your recommended links. Thanks for the edits. --racecarradar 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Per above, I changed Enabling act to Enabling act (United States), since the latter is more relevant to this article and the former gives an undesirable prominence to "The most famous such law is the German Enabling act of 1933, enacted at the beginning of the rise of the Third Reich". rewinn 06:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated challanges

Updated number of challenges and added citations as new information is now available.

Eulerskunk 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits and interpretation of source

The article on the controversy seemed pretty POV, so I added a couple of sources arguing on behalf of signing statements. I also added a fact tag in the paragraph about unitary executive theory; it seems pretty absurd and conspiratorial to suggest that the President claims to have unchecked power, and indeed, not a single source in the "interpretation" citation is non-partisan or in favor of unitary executive theory, whatever it is (I haven't examined the issue myself). Additionally, I'd like to see a quote from the source that verifies this statement:

"As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws."

I searched for "810" in the source, but nothing came up. Aristotle1990 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Update needed

A recent report shows that Bush has issued 151 signing statements challenging 1,149 provisions of specific federal laws.[7] Badagnani 02:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Challenge" vs. "not be bound"

In the description of the McCain Amendment controversy, I changed "challenge" to "not be bound" because there is nothing notable in the President, or indeed in anybody, challenging a law. That's how our system is support to work! What is notable is the Bush Administration's claim that the President is not bound by a law passed by Congress and signed by the president, if the president thinks it is so (in his independent judgment, to paraphrase the WSJ editorial --- surely a bizarre source of law!) According to this theory, it is then up to the Congress to challenge the president, which would be a most noteworthy change to our constitutional order post-Marbury v. Madison. rewinn (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense to me. It is certainly "notable" that the President would challenge the constitutionality of a law that he has just signed. I am not convinced that "our system is support [sic] to work" that way. The Constitution commands the president to "sign if he approve" the bill, or "return" the bill "if he disapprove." I think it is more accurate to say that the President "challenges" the law rather than "is not bound" because the latter assumes the answer to the central question: Is he bound or not? Rossarroz (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Exclusively American

Signing statements are exclusive to the United States of America. Until data about occurrences outside USA is produced, Signing Statements must at most redirect. Trying to invent an article implying that it is done anywhere else is POV-pushing. rewinn (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's only exclusive to the United States then the article doesn't need to be Signing statement (United States). The introductory text should indicate that it's only a practice in the United States, if that's the case. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 21:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

The sources cited by this article are contradictory in the numbers of signing statements they claim for different presidents. Before my latest changes, the article was quoting numbers that didn't match the cited sources. It currently quotes numbers from Dahlia Lithwick's 30 Jan 2006 Slate article:[8]

"Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have produced 247 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges."

But the 17 Sep 2007 Congressional Research Service report[9] states:

"President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection."

Now, none of those numbers add up to 247. The totals add to 858 and the "objecting" statement counts add to 263 (okay, at least that's close — but then it's misleading to refer to this as the number of signing statements). So where did the 247 come from? Cooper's paper? (Which Lithwick cites repeatedly — although she gets his middle initial wrong — and which I have not been able to read...) Kelley's paper? (Which she also cites — and which seems to have completely disappeared from the web...) Certainly not Van Bergen's article, which, while quoting the same 75 pre-Reagan figure, also says:

"From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322. In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone."

Now, the first number might be consonant with the 247 pre-W figure quoted by Lithwick, but the second (435) is wildly higher than anyone else's number (unless she's referring to individual objections, in which case the first number is way too low). Basically, these figures are a mess. - dcljr (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha! OK, I'm an idiot. Right after saving my comment above, I realized 247 did come from Van Bergen: 75 + 247 = 322. Whatever. I still say these numbers are fishy, for the other reasons I cite above. - dcljr (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, if there is any doubt about the historical numbers, replace them with something less precise, e.g. "less than 100" or "around 300". Readers seeking precision can always go to the sources. It's quite possible that figuring out whether the "real" count in 247 or 249 or 299 might depend on an interpretation of just what is a signing statement. For most purposes, accuracy rather than precision is needed. rewinn (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's another part of the current version of the article that brings in the number 700 and then says Bill Clinton issued even more (but with a very weak citation). It seems the number 700 may be some kind of estimate of the number of components of the signing statements or the number of legislative items being redefined or challenged in the signing statement. However it clearly seems the article needs a breakdown of the signing statements that reflects what's in them. In other words, the section about "Applying a metric..." needs a lot of work. Shanen (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links

The external links guidelines states "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.". For that reason I intend to pare down the ELs in this article. Bonewah (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bush administration

This section is entirely unbalanced, consisting entirely of criticism, with only a couple of conclusory sentences from a WSJ op-ed on the other side. There is substantial literature defending the use of signing statements, not to mention the fact that a substantial number of the Bush signing statements were rejections of plainly unconstitutional attempts by Congress to create legislative vetoes in violation of INS v. Chadha. THF (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

International perspective?

This article treats signing statements only in the context of the United States federal government. Are there analogous executive challenges to legislative authority at other levels of government, or in other countries having a presidential system of government? If so, interesting comparisons might be made.CharlesHBennett (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Signing statements are not a challenge to legislative authority. Congress is always free to pass another bill that clarifies or overrides the signing statement.

I don't know about other countries, or if it's even possible in the parliamentary system, but something similar is not uncommon in treaties (see: Reservation (law)).

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

References

The link to source 2 in references is a dead link, as noted. I believe this is the correct updated link: http://www.abanow.org/2006/07/blue-ribbon-task-force-finds-president-bushs-signing-statements-undermine-separation-of-powers/ I would edit it in but I don't know how. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.160.86 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Signing statement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abanow.org/2006/07/blue-ribbon-task-force-finds-president-bushs-signing-statements-undermine-separation-of-powers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Signing statement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214054249/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fdean%2F20060113.html to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fdean%2F20060113.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Description should not include examples

Although the description is "fair and balanced," as far as mentioning both a Republican and Democrat (GW Bush & Obama, respectively), it is irrelevant and presumptious to the description, which should give details/definitions, not arguable political stances. Furthermore, it makes for tit-for-tat editorializing, such that someone may come along and say that Trump has done more of such than any President in history, and then one would have to cite the President who did the least. In other words, the entire paragraph should be removed, IMnsHO. Skaizun (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Restoring "non-signing statement" paragraph (with modification)

User Observer2345 on March 12 has made several edits, among which was removing this passage about the "non-signing statement":

The "non-signing statement" is a related method that some presidents have used to express concerns about certain provisions in a bill without vetoing it. With the non-signing statement, presidents announce their reasons for declining to sign, while allowing the bill to become law unsigned. The U.S. Constitution allows such enactments by default: if the President does not sign the bill, it becomes law after ten days, excepting Sundays, "unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return..."

This was deleted with no trace left of this subject matter, and without any reason given for it. This was the user's only date of ever editing Wikipedia and the only article that the user touched as well. I believe this removal was unwarranted.

Although perhaps the non-signing statement is not as notable as the quoted paragraph makes it sound like, there is at least one proper source talking about it. And presidents have used it before, according to that source, so I do not think this is fringe to talk about in the article. A quick Google search shows that some other entities in the US (such as here, with then-California governor Jerry Brown) have used a procedure of making reservations about a measure but not blocking it, but also not endorsing it and instead choosing to simply promulgate it, essentially - and calling this a "non-signing statement". 104.175.78.152 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 104.175.78.152 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

References