• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
A Comparative Look at the Constitutional Signing Statement:The Case of Bush and ClintonPresented by:Christopher S. KelleyDepartment of Political ScienceMiami UniversityOxford, OH 45056Please direct all inquiries to:kelleycs@muohio.eduPresented at the 61
st
Annual Meeting of theMidwest Political Science AssociationChicago, ILApril 3-6, 2003Abstract:
Presidential scholars studying interbranch relations with the Congress have longdirected their attention to the presidential veto, veto threats, and veto bargaining in assessing how presidents get what they want out of legislation. What has not been studied is the use of theconstitutional signing statement to tweak more out of the legislative process that is not gained inthe formal process of veto threats and veto bargaining. This paper examines how PresidentsBush and Clinton used the constitutional signing statement to deal both with constitutionallysuspect provisions in bills presented for their signature and to deal with legislation that theydisagreed with politically and administratively.
Keywords:
President, Congress, Veto, Veto Bargaining, Separation of Powers
 
The presidential signing statement has long been the “black sheep” of presidential power tools. Presidential scholars have paid more attention lately to presidential proclamations,memoranda, and executive orders.
1
In addition to the new focus on unusual presidential powers,the signing statement has also been overshadowed by the focus on the presidential veto and veto bargaining.
2
As I will demonstrate, the presidential signing statement is not only a formidable power in its own right, but it also is highly useful for the president when he does not get all thathe wishes in his negotiations with the Congress or to take advantage of a contentious debatewithin the Congress. And as some have commentated, the presidential signing statement oftenacts as an “iron-clad item veto”
3
because it allows the president to excise items from a billwithout any chance for the Congress to overrule the decision.The presidential signing statement has become particularly important in the last thirtyyears due to the persistence of highly partisan, divided government that makes it nearlyimpossible for a president to move his policies through the Congress. Additionally, sinceWatergate, there has been an assault on the “imperial” nature of the presidency and thus morereasons for presidents to protect the prerogatives of the office. The presidential signingstatement has been extremely useful in allowing the president to gain advantage over policy, tospeak to preferred constituency, and to protect the prerogatives of the office. In this paper, I willargue that political scientists need to begin to understand and consider the importance of the presidential signing statement, in particular for the focus of this conference, the constitutionally-oriented signing statement. It has been used deftly by Presidents Reagan through the currentBush administration to gain advantages lost in the legislative process or to work out losses in the process of veto bargaining, as I will discuss below with the signing statement andimplementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
 
The Presidential Signing Statement
 My own work has examined an understudied presidential device known as the signingstatement. What little has been studied has been relegated to law students and in law journals,which often fails to appreciate the political importance of what they are, how they havedeveloped, and what it does for institutional relations between the branches. What I have foundis that the signing statement is a highly useful device for presidents to use to advance their policy preferences and to protect the prerogatives of the office. Further, the use of the signing statementhas greatly increased in the Reagan-Clinton presidencies. In this section, I will provide therelevant background information regarding the signing statement before turning my attention inthe next section to examining the use of the constitutional signing statement during the Bush andthe Clinton presidencies.On the surface, the signing statement is an easy device to understand.
4
They are nothingmore than the statement that the president makes upon signing a piece of legislation into law.The president does not always make a statement. And the signing statement is usually notsomething that is done publicly. When the president does hold a formal signing statementceremony, often times the remarks he makes publicly differ slightly or greatly from the writtensigning statement. And since 1986, the presidential signing statement has become part of the“Legislative History” section of the
United States Congressional Code and Administrative News
 (USCCAN).In my research, I have broken the presidential signing statement into three separatecategories: The “constitutional” signing statement, the “political” signing statement, and the“rhetorical” signing statement.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...