What's So Sinister about Presidential Signing Statements?

Abstract

Presidential signing statements, especially "constitutional" ones, have been characterized as line-item vetoes and a general abuse of power. But are signing statements so sinister? We suggest that the popular unilateral powers framework, as applied to signing statements, is inappropriate and that signing statements of all types function more like a dialogue with Congress. Using content analysis of all signing statements from 1977 to 2010, we demonstrate that signing statements routinely address general interbranch themes rather than the substance of a law. We thus provide a new perspective on presidential signing statements as a continuation of interbranch dialogue.

The Purloined Letters

“…In short, when examining the competing perspectives of the unilateral/unitary executive (Kelley & Marshall, 2010) and the dialog model (Ostrander & Sievert, 2013), the present study supports the former. While there is perhaps an element of dialog contained within the signing statements, the increasing frequency and substantive nature of the signing statements suggest that signing statements within criminal justice policy areas tend to be part of a unilateral presidency.…”

“…The suggestion, provided by Ostrander and Sievert (2013), that presidents use signing statements as a dialog with Congress, while interesting, is not generally supported by this analysis. The suggestion, provided by Ostrander and Sievert (2013), that presidents use signing statements as a dialog with Congress, while interesting, is not generally supported by this analysis.…”

“…While specific cases presented by Ostrander and Sievert (2013) do point to occasions where there was no substantive concern with a piece of legislation, the examples cited hereinbefore on the constitutional signing statement issued by President George W. Bush regarding the checkpoint rotation provision contained in the legislation, suggests that there are occasions where there are real, substantive impacts. This, perhaps, is more prevalent in criminal justice legislation than other legislative areas (given the clear association in criminal justice with executive authority), but the data seems to support the unilateral approach suggested by Kelley and Marshall (2010) or a "last move advantage" perspective (Kelley & Marshall, 2008).…”

Constraining Presidential Ambition: Controversy and the Decline of Signing Statements

“…Furthermore, Ainsworth et al (, 314) noted that congressional reactions to signing statements are “more immediate and of greater impact” when compared to reactions to SAPs. Given that these tools often contain substantially similar language and argumentation (Ostrander and Sievert ), presidents may now be opting for this lower‐cost tool.…”

The Politics of Credit in Presidential Signing Statements

“…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.…”