“A Legitimate Function”: Reconsidering Presidential Signing Statements

Korzi, Michael J.

doi:10.1080/07343469.2011.576222

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mayer and others in this area sought to reassess the former “paradigm of the presidential studies literature that [held] that presidents have limited capacity to act unilaterally”(, 445). More recently, scholars have branched out into signing statements (Crouch, Rozell, and Sollenberger ; Kelly and Marshall , ; Korzi ; Ostrander and Sievert ) and proclamations (Bailey and Rottinghaus ; Rottinghaus and Maier ). While these studies do represent an important step toward defining the president's means of acting beyond informal bargaining (which is difficult to observe), the research program as a whole has yet to systematically analyze memoranda use across time.…”

Section: Unilateral Action Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contemporary Presidency After the Orders: Presidential Memoranda and Unilateral Action

Lowande

2014

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important vein of presidency scholarship has focused on the president's instruments of unilateral action through systemic considerations of executive orders, proclamations, and most recently, signing statements. This article considers an additional tool: presidential memoranda. I argue these memoranda contain important policy content advancing the president's agenda, and—like executive orders—they often indicate unilateral action. Memoranda use has surged as the issuance of executive orders has decreased, indicating that unilateralism is not declining, but rather, the means of such action may be shifting.

show abstract

Section: Unilateral Action Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contemporary Presidency After the Orders: Presidential Memoranda and Unilateral Action

Lowande

2014

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, do they have any legal force within governmental agencies, or are they just “for show?” Answering this question has proven vexing, though there is some (admittedly limited) evidence, which suggests that signing statements have important policy effects. Berry (), for example, presents information showing that orders within signing statements are applied inconsistently, suggesting that there is at least partial compliance and, by extension, that signing statements do matter at least under certain conditions (see also Korzi [])…”

Section: The Use Of Signing Statementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A surge in research on presidential signing statements followed in the wake of the controversy (Berry ; Conley ; Kelley and Marshall , , ; Korzi ; Ostrander and Sievert ; Sollenberger and Rozell ). The belief that Bush's usage of signing statements was “unprecedented” (Savage ) was significantly overstated, but nevertheless, focus among many presidential scholars, especially scholars of unilateral presidential power, began to shift to the causes and consequences of signing statements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Signing Statements, Gridlock, and Presidential Strategy

Kennedy

2014

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do presidents use signing statements? Past research has approached presidential strategy in using such statements from both policy-oriented and institutionally oriented perspectives. However, scholars have not adequately addressed the consequences of congressional ideology and gridlock on the use of presidential signing statements. This article considers congressional composition and offers two different perspectives on presidential strategy: a separation of powers perspective (i.e., presidents use signing statements to protect their office from congressional encroachment) and a political perspective (i.e., presidents use signing statements to counteract the actions of an adversarial Congress). I find that political factors are more important: under conditions of unified government, gridlock predicts fewer substantive signing statements than under conditions of divided government. The results suggest a theory of unilateral power, which posits that presidents are strategic and will change their use of particular policy-shaping tools depending on various political circumstances.

show abstract

“…With a few important exceptions (Conley 2011;Evans 2014;Kelley, Marshall, and Watts 2013), the rhetorical purposes and implications of the signing statement have largely been ignored. 3 Some scholars view signing statements through the lens of a larger interbranch dialogue (Korzi 2011;Ostrander and Sievert 2013a) as opposed to a harsher form of unilateralism that is primarily designed to make tangible shifts in policy outcomes towards the president. We believe that the credit rhetoric considered throughout this article fits neatly into the interbranch dialogue framework.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%