Original Post
by TChris
7/22

When Congress sends President Bush legislation that he doesn't want to obey but can't bring himself to veto, he issues a "signing statement." Some statements purport to limit the law's reach or to change its congressionally intended meaning. The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating the president's use or abuse of signing statements, and the ABA voted last month to investigate whether Bush's use of signing statements exceeded his constitutional authority.

US News reports that an ABA Task Force will release a report Monday recommending judicial review of the signing statements. While the mechanism for judicial review is unclear, "some task force members want to simply give Congress the right to sue over the signing statements."

[At its annual meeting], the ABA will review four other resolutions, three directed to the president and one to Congress. The first three ask the president not to use signing statements as a kind of shortcut veto. If the president thinks a bill or part of a bill is unconstitutional, one of these resolution declares, he should feel free to say so--but he should do that before he signs it, not after. The other resolution suggests Congress craft legislation to make signing statements more transparent and more accessible. Currently, signing statements are not sent directly to Congress, and they are often ambiguous in their intent. But a law could require the president to write a report explaining exactly how and why he plans not to enforce a law, if he plans not to enforce it, for every signing statement he issues.