The Logic of Presidential Signing Statements

Abstract

Signing statements constitute a salient executive power that has recently captured scholarly and political attention. Prior literature suggests that presidents use signing statements to gain additional policy concessions from Congress. Evidence of policy motivations are, however, difficult to demonstrate and policy motives fail to explain a wide range of existing statements. The authors propose an additional incentive mechanism based on defending traditional presidential authority. Using original data on approximately 8,500 public laws and 1,250 signing statements, the authors investigate when and why signing statements occur. They find presidents are likely to issue constitutional signing statements on bills traditionally falling under the president’s purview.

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

“…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.…”

Constraining Presidential Ambition: Controversy and the Decline of Signing Statements

“…The true controversy around the use of signing statements did not erupt until the administration of George W. Bush. While he did not use signing statements more frequently than prior presidents (see Figure ), George W. Bush did tend to issue more constitutional objections on an increased number of statutes within his statements (Ostrander and Sievert ; Whitford ). Such objections, especially when coupled in language of “interpreting” the statute, are controversial in nature because they imply that the executive branch will selectively enforce statutes within a law.…”

“…Rhetorical statements typically praise allies, extol the virtues of a given piece of legislation, or request future action on a particular legislative matter (Evans ; Kelley, Marshall, and Watts ). Constitutional statements meanwhile raise questions about particular provisions of a bill and are commonly used to protect or make claims about presidential interests (Evans ; Ostrander and Sievert ). Not surprisingly, constitutional signing statements have traditionally been the most controversial and the source of congressional opposition.…”

Framing the Accomplishment: How, and Why, Presidents use the Rhetorical Content in Signing Statements for Strategic Purposes, FDR–Carter

“…The failures are those who, upon leaving office, look to some time in the distant future when people might begin to appreciate the wisdom of what they did. (Skowronek 1997, 17-18) Scholars in both political science (e.g., Berry 2009;Cooper 2005;Evans 2011Evans , 2012Kelley and Marshall 2009;Ostrander and Sievert 2013) and constitutional law (e.g., Crabb 2007;Cross 1988;Johnsen 2008;Kinkopf and Shane 2011;Lee 2007;Waites 1986) concentrate almost exclusively on a controversial subset of signing statements-those that attempt to reinterpret or disregard provisions of law in light of the Constitution. In fact, Pfiffner (2008Pfiffner ( , 2009) asserts that the constitutional challenges in signing statements are a fundamental threat to the rule of law, but those that the president uses to exhort, to give information, or for ceremonial purposes, are generally seen as benign, legitimate, and non-controversial.…”