Constitutional Law

More Debate On Presidential Signing Statements

Last week when President Obama signed a spending bill, he attached a statement questioning the constitutionality of some of the bill's provisions. Obama's statement has prompted more debate over the impact and role of presidential signing statements.

Neil Kinkopf in a post for Duke Law School's Executive Watch, challenges Eric Posner's assertions that presidential signing statements have no impact on public policy and that Obama's first statement signals he likely agrees with his predecessor's views on executive power.

Kinkopf wrote:

First, the claim that ‘signing statements have almost zero practical effect' is highly dubious. The GAO conducted a review of 19 constitutional objections contained in President Bush's signing statements regarding 2006 appropriations acts. The study found that ‘10 provisions were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine.' I wouldn't want to overstate the significance of this report, but it does demonstrate that agencies do in fact rely on signing statements in enforcing federal law.

 

Kinkopf, a law professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a former Clinton administration lawyer, authored an ACS Issue Brief examining presidential signing statements. 'Signing Statements and the President's Authority to Refuse to Enforce the Law,' is available here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on March 18, 2009 (boomark / email).