President Bush's Controversial Use Of Signing Statements

The Constitution allows for a varying interpretation of executive power. It is largely up to the other branches, especially Congress, to restrict the expanding power of the presidency and maintain their own constitutional powers. During his presidency, George W. Bush characterized aspects of the Unitary Executive Theory through his excessive use of signing statements. President Bush’s controversial use of signing statements reignited a debate on the constitutionality of the signing statement. In his argument, Peter M. Shane cites the Bush administration as an example of the dangers of an unchecked executive power. Nelson Lund, on the other hand, argues that presidential signing statements pose no threat to the rule of law. Fundamentally, when not abused, the signing statement is an important power of the president.

The most concerning aspect of the use of signing statements, according to Shane, is there is no corresponding constitutional check in place. Without an institutional constraint, signing statements can lead to an expansive executive branch. Additionally, Shane claims the signing statement is a quasi-legal document and that its status as such threatens the rule of law because they “could become largely unmanageable.” A system of laws, says Shane, which can be invalidated through a mandate from a successor, like the one President Obama issued regarding President Bush’s signing statements, “would not be a system of laws at all.” Shane cites the American Bar Association’s report on President Bush’s signing statements. The report describes the practice as a political weapon that embodies unrestrained institutional appetite for