The Executive's Signing Statement: A Constitutional Veto?

The use of signing statements by US presidents has been a source of controversy and debate. While some argue that these statements are a form of veto, others assert that they are not part of the legislative process as outlined in the Constitution and carry no legal weight. A signing statement allows a president to comment on a law being signed, including interpreting its meaning, objecting to provisions, or stating their intent in executing it. The statements have sparked discussions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and whether presidents can effectively veto parts of a bill, known as a line-item veto. The Supreme Court has ruled that line-item vetoes are unconstitutional, but the use of signing statements continues to be a topic of discussion and disagreement among legal scholars, journalists, and politicians.

Explore related products

The Veto Power

$26.95

The Unusual Story of the Pocket Veto Case, 1926-1929 (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$24.99 $29.99

The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution (The University Center for Human Values Series)

$18.55 $27.95

The Power of Separation

$53.58 $55

Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes

$42 $138

The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking)

$52.24 $54.99

Signing statements are not part of the legislative process and have no legal effect

Signing statements are presidential comments that can include the president's interpretation of the meaning of a law's language, objections to certain provisions of the law on constitutional grounds, and the president's intent regarding how they will execute the law. They have been used since the early 19th century and have played a role in conflicts between the executive and legislative branches. For example, in 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt indicated in a signing statement that he felt a section of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriations Act of 1943 was unconstitutional, but that he had no choice but to sign the bill "to avoid delaying our conduct of the war."

Despite their long history, signing statements are not part of the legislative process and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the president says in an accompanying signing statement. This was demonstrated in 1972, when President Nixon issued a signing statement indicating that a provision in a bill did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect." A federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a president, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity as a defense to criminal prosecution nor serve as the basis for a suit to invalidate the legislation in question."

The use of signing statements by presidents to object to provisions of law has been controversial, with commentators and journalists, including the American Bar Association, arguing that they constitute a veto to which Congress cannot respond, and therefore represent a line-item veto. Line-item vetoes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. However, others have argued that the president has a duty not to sign a law that would be unconstitutional, as they take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution (Article II, Section 1).

While signing statements may not have legal effect, they can still have an impact on the implementation of a law. The statements can provide guidance to executive branch personnel and influence how they carry out the law. Additionally, while not legally binding, the reasoning behind signing statements may be respected within the executive branch and contribute to the American constitutional tradition.

Presidents use signing statements to comment on the law being signed

Signing statements have been used since the early 19th century by US presidents to comment on the law being signed. They are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution and have no legal effect. However, they can play a role in conflicts between the executive and legislative branches. For example, in 1943, during World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt indicated in a signing statement that he felt a section of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriations Act of 1943 was unconstitutional, but that he had no choice but to sign the bill "to avoid delaying our conduct of the war."

Signing statements can include the president's interpretation of the meaning of the law's language, objections to certain provisions of the law on constitutional grounds, and the president's intent regarding how they intend to execute or carry out the law, including guidance to executive branch personnel.

The use of signing statements by presidents to object to provisions of law has been controversial, with some commentators and journalists, including the American Bar Association, arguing that they constitute a veto to which Congress cannot respond, effectively representing a line-item veto. Line-item vetoes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.

Some scholars, lawyers, and reporters have asserted that President George W. Bush used signing statements as a presidential line-item veto, and the Obama administration's use of signing statements to assert constitutional objections to enacted statutory provisions also represented a departure from previous administrations.

It is worth noting that a signed law is still a law, regardless of what the president says in an accompanying signing statement. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not.

Signing statements can be used to assert objections to certain provisions of the law on constitutional grounds

Signing statements have been used by presidents since the early 19th century to comment on the law being signed. They can be used to assert objections to certain provisions of the law on constitutional grounds. For example, in 1943, during World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt indicated in a signing statement that he felt Section 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriations Act of 1943 was unconstitutional, but that he had no choice but to sign the bill "to avoid delaying our conduct of the war."

The use of signing statements by presidents to object to provisions of law has been controversial. Some commentators and journalists, including the American Bar Association, argue that these statements effectively constitute a veto to which Congress cannot respond, and therefore represent a line-item veto. Line-item vetoes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which held that the language of the Constitution requires each bill presented to the president to be either approved or rejected as a whole.

However, unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law, regardless of what the president says in an accompanying signing statement. For example, in 1972, after President Nixon issued a signing statement indicating that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a president, could deny efficacy to legislation.

While the president has the power to veto any bill passed by Congress, the president also has a duty not to sign a law that would be unconstitutional, as the president takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution (Article II, Section 1). The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).

Explore related products

The Know Your Bill of Rights Book: Don't Lose Your Constitutional Rights--Learn Them!

$8.69 $14.99

The Veto Power in the United States: What is It?

$24.99

War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority

$28.99 $31

Unelected Power: The Quest for Legitimacy in Central Banking and the Regulatory State

$15.35 $24.95

Harvard Historical Monographs, No. 1. The veto power: its origin, development, and function in the government of the United States (1789-1889)

$17.45

Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton Studies in American Politics)

$28.01 $45

The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not

The US Constitution outlines the powers of the three branches of the US government: the legislative branch (Congress), the executive branch (the President), and the judicial branch (the courts). The legislative branch enacts laws, the executive branch carries out or "executes" the laws, and the judicial branch applies the law to individual cases and controversies, ensuring that government officials do not exceed their powers.

The US Supreme Court, as part of the judicial branch, is the ultimate arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not. This was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of various issues, including veto power and signing statements.

A signing statement is a comment or statement issued by the President when signing a bill into law. While signing statements have been used since the early 19th century, their use has been controversial. Presidents have used signing statements to interpret the meaning of the law, object to certain provisions on constitutional grounds, and state their intent in executing the law. Some argue that signing statements amount to a line-item veto, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). The Court held that the President must approve or reject a bill as a whole and that picking and choosing which parts of a bill to approve or disapprove of violated the separation of powers doctrine.

Despite the controversy, the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the constitutionality of signing statements. However, the Court has indicated that the President is bound to give effect to Congressional enactments and should exercise their veto authority if faced with a bill they deem unconstitutional.

In conclusion, while signing statements may raise constitutional concerns and contribute to the American constitutional tradition, they do not carry much direct weight in the American legal system. The US Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, has provided guidance on veto power and the separation of powers but has not specifically ruled on the constitutionality of signing statements.

The President has the power to veto any bill passed by Congress

The President of the United States has the power to veto any bill passed by Congress. This is a power enshrined in the US Constitution, which states that the President can veto any law that Congress presents for signing. The veto power is a key check and balance on Congress's legislative power.

A veto can be overridden by Congress if it can muster a two-thirds majority to re-enact the law. This is called "overriding the veto". Historically, Congress has only overridden about 7% of presidential vetoes. A bill can also become law without the President's signature if it is not signed within ten days and Congress is still in session. This is known as a "pocket veto".

When a bill is vetoed, the President usually issues a veto statement or message explaining their reasons for doing so. This is often done at a signing ceremony with the media present. However, unlike veto statements, signing statements are not part of the legislative process outlined in the Constitution and have no legal effect. They are comments made by the President when signing a bill into law, which can include the President's interpretation of the law, objections to certain provisions, or their intent in executing the law.

Some commentators and journalists have argued that the use of signing statements by Presidents is controversial and can constitute a de facto line-item veto, particularly when Presidents indicate that they are not bound by certain provisions of a law. This was the case with President Nixon, who stated in a signing statement that a provision in a bill was "without binding force or effect". However, the Supreme Court has ruled that line-item vetoes are unconstitutional.

Frequently asked questions