![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Signing Statements
Jan. 6th, 2007 11:32 amA signing statement is merely the expression of what the executive believes the law enacted actually means, in the context of other laws and the Constitution. It is no different in legal effect than the ordinary and necessary interpretation done to any law as part of the normal process of executing them, which has been done by every administration in the history of the country.
The only new bit is that it's written down where judges can see and evaluate it if and when a dispute over interpretation gets to court. It does not bind the judge in any way, it merely tells the judge what the President says he thought he was doing when he signed the law. If the judge is of the type that considers legislative history relevant in interpreting law, he might actually give some small weight to the statement when writing his opinion.
That's it.
So, what happens if the President interpreted the law in a controversial manner in a signing statement? The same thing that happens any other time a President controversially interprets a law; somebody sues, the courts make a judgment, and a court order is issued. Which happens all the time, mostly because most legislation is incompetently drafted. (Well, I say incompetent; a better term is politically drafted, with ambiguities and even unconstitutional provisions deliberately included to try to satisfy multiple constituencies at once.)
If you see someone expressing concern about signing statements, you're seeing somebody who either doesn't understand what one is, or you're seeing someone deliberately lying about what one is to try to scare you.
The only new bit is that it's written down where judges can see and evaluate it if and when a dispute over interpretation gets to court. It does not bind the judge in any way, it merely tells the judge what the President says he thought he was doing when he signed the law. If the judge is of the type that considers legislative history relevant in interpreting law, he might actually give some small weight to the statement when writing his opinion.
That's it.
So, what happens if the President interpreted the law in a controversial manner in a signing statement? The same thing that happens any other time a President controversially interprets a law; somebody sues, the courts make a judgment, and a court order is issued. Which happens all the time, mostly because most legislation is incompetently drafted. (Well, I say incompetent; a better term is politically drafted, with ambiguities and even unconstitutional provisions deliberately included to try to satisfy multiple constituencies at once.)
If you see someone expressing concern about signing statements, you're seeing somebody who either doesn't understand what one is, or you're seeing someone deliberately lying about what one is to try to scare you.
