Comments on: A role for courts on presidential statements

By: federalist

federalist — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:38:46 +0000

This whole thing seems a tad ridiculous. First, the president’s views on the meaning of what he is signing seems to be as important as legislative history (if you are one that thinks these things relevant). Second, are we really going to have a declaratory judgment every time the president decides to opine on the constitutionality of a particular law?

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:26:38 +0000

This invites courts, when the bill doesn’t go anywhere, to give more credit to signing statements than they currently do (very little, I believe).

Why stop at signing statements? Why not overrule Chevron and other rulings, and not give strong discretion to agency judgment? At some point, executives will have broad discretion to apply laws.

As with the courts, this will result in some de facto law making. There is a nailing jello to the wall quality here, isn’t there? Will courts to look at agency practice etc. to help interpret application of the law also be in trouble now?

This law also stretches the “case and controversy” standing rules … members of Congress tried to use the courts to defend their powers against “line item vetoes,” and the SC said no. They waited until a particular person was harmed.

This doesn’t bode well.

By: Adam White

Adam White — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:58:46 +0000

“Congress already has a voice in the debate — the statute itself (and the Congressional Record).”

“The Presentment Clause makes no provision for presidential signing statements, just as it makes no provision for a line-item veto. That ought to be the end of the discussion.”

Does the Presentment Clause make provision for reliance on the Congressional Record?

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:42:26 +0000

"That way, if the Court is trying to determine the meaning or the constitutionality of an act, the Congress gets a voice in the debate."

So Congress wants to give itself the power of judicial review? In order to preserve the separation of powers?

Congress already has a voice in the debate -- the statute itself (and the Congressional Record).

And individual Members of Congress are also entitled to submit amicus briefs as they see fit.

The Presentment Clause makes no provision for presidential signing statements, just as it makes no provision for a line-item veto. That ought to be the end of the discussion.