Presidency in the US - Presidents Clinton and Bush - Essay Example

On 17.10.2005, President Bush made a statement on signing the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. The statement almost gives a negative feeling that he was displeased, and was unhappy to carry out the presidential requirement of the Constitution of making it a law, but was bound to do so.

On 20.7.1962, President Kennedy made a statement signing Bill Accelerating the Development of the Pacific Islands Trust Territory and the statement was an expression of happiness and satisfaction as he was concerned about it before becoming President. The President was hailed as a visionary, had nothing against the law, and hoped for the best results.

On 12th August 1998, President Clinton made a statement “These are tough times for many American farmers. We must continue to look for ways to help our farm communities get through them.” This statement finds the President in total agreement with Congress and he was merely showing his concern and compassion that might lead to further actions to fortify the present law. So, Presidents make them only because they have strong feelings about a certain law and are involved in it in one way or another.

There had been various remarks on recent presidential signing statements. Gregory Borse proclaims that Presidential signing is not ‘bypassing law’. According to him, ‘it accrues extra-constitutional powers of the President to the executive branch’. Technically speaking, it is a note that the President makes after signing, a token of his involvement. Or simply calls attention to an aspect of the bill that the President believes to violate the Constitution.

Signing statements could be used as a weapon against the encroachments of Congress on Executive authority. Even though it is a highly contentious debate, legal minds have argued that President could have the authority of declining to sign if so he feels that the legislation is unconstitutional.

Presidents Clinton and Bush increased the number of signing statements. While President Clinton vetoed 37 bills, Bush hardly used the veto. “The unprecedented juxtaposition of President Bush's failure to exercise a single veto, yet issuing more than a hundred signing statements, has created considerable concern and explains the broad and bipartisan response to his actions” http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/062706ogletree.html

In a scathing statement, John Dean said these statements are steroids for the Bush administration and sometimes, they could be used as pointers to executive departments on how they should implement a particular law. They also can be used to nullify the effect and avoids the need of using a veto. Despite veto power, President cannot reject all bills passed by Congress and Congress keeps a check on executive power by passing them. The debate will continue on who has the higher constitutional power and in the meantime, the two powers are healthy and balanced with one another. Some fear that it could lead to a unitary executive and Presidential encroachment. They could be used for explaining, authorizing, directing, informing an unconstitutional flaw, and also making a law administrative and legal. It is a two-way weapon. Or it could be simply read as “interpreting the law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law ”. President could flatly proclaim it unconstitutional and refuse to sign. President Bush is accused of constant encroachment on the authority of Congress by ‘challenging hundreds of laws.’ 

. The Theory remains that signing statements are made only when Presidents have something strong enough to say other than the mere signing of the bill.

Read More