[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1747 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1747
To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the
interpretation of Acts of Congress.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 29, 2007
Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the
interpretation of Acts of Congress.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Presidential Signing Statements Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) While the executive branch has a role in enacting
legislation, it is clear that this is a limited role. Article
I, section 7 of the Constitution provides that when a bill is
presented to the President, he may either sign it or veto it
with his objections, and his veto is subject to a congressional
override by two-thirds majorities in the House of
Representatives and Senate.
(2) As the President signs a bill into law, the President
sometimes issues a statement elaborating on his views of a
bill.
(3) This practice began in the early 1800s, and such
statements have been issued by Presidents including James
Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson,
Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George
H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
(4) Much more recently, some courts have begun using
presidential signing statements as a source of authority in the
interpretation of Acts of Congress.
(5) This judicial use of presidential signing statements is
inappropriate, because it in effect gives these statements the
force of law. As the Supreme Court itself has explained,
Article I, section 7, of the Constitution provides a ``single,
finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure'' for the
making of Federal law. I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951
(1983). Presidential signing statements are not passed by both
Houses of Congress pursuant to Article I, section 7, so they
are not the supreme law of the land. It is inappropriate,
therefore, for courts to rely on presidential signing
statements as a source of authority in the interpretation of
Acts of Congress.
(6) The Supreme Court's reliance on presidential signing
statements has been sporadic and unpredictable. In some cases,
such as Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 719 n.1 (1986), the
Supreme Court has relied on presidential signing statements as
a source of authority, while in other cases, such as the recent
military tribunals case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749
(2006), it has conspicuously declined to do so. This
inconsistency has the unfortunate effect of rendering the
interpretation of Federal law unpredictable.
(7) As the Hamdan case demonstrates, the Justices of the
Supreme Court appear to disagree with one another on the
propriety of reliance on presidential signing statements in the
interpretation of Federal law. The Supreme Court, with its nine
competing perspectives and its jurisdictional restriction to
cases and controversies, may remain unable to resolve this
difference of opinion and establish a clear rule abjuring such
reliance.
(8) Congress has the power to resolve judicial disputes
such as this by enacting rules of statutory interpretation.
This power flows from Article I, section 8, clause 18, which
gives Congress the power ``To make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the
government of the United States, or in any department or
officer thereof''. Rules of statutory interpretation are
necessary and proper to bring into execution the legislative
power.
(9) Congress can and should exercise this power over the
interpretation of Federal statutes in a systematic and
comprehensive manner.
(10) Congress hereby exercises this power to forbid
judicial reliance on presidential signing statements as a
source of authority in the interpretation of Acts of Congress.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION.
As used in this Act, the term ``presidential signing statement''
means a statement issued by the President about a bill, in conjunction
with signing that bill into law pursuant to Article I, section 7, of
the Constitution.
SEC. 4. JUDICIAL USE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, no Federal or
State court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement
as a source of authority.
SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN COURT PROCEEDINGS OR
SUBMIT CLARIFYING RESOLUTION.
(a) Congressional Right To Participate as Amicus Curiae.--In any
action, suit, or proceeding in any Federal or State court (including
the Supreme Court of the United States), regarding the construction or
constitutionality, or both, of any Act of Congress in which a
presidential signing statement was issued, the Federal or State Court
shall permit the United States Senate, through the Office of Senate
Legal Counsel, as authorized in section 701 of the Ethics in Government
Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. 288), or the United States House of
Representatives, through the Office of General Counsel for the United
States House of Representatives, or both, to participate as an amicus
curiae, and to present an oral argument on the question of the Act's
construction or constitutionality, or both. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to confer standing on any party seeking to bring, or
jurisdiction on any court with respect to, any civil or criminal
action, including suit for court costs, against Congress, either House
of Congress, a Member of Congress, a committee or subcommittee of a
House of Congress, any office or agency of Congress, or any officer or
employee of a House of Congress or any office or agency of Congress.
(b) Congressional Right To Submit Clarifying Resolution.--In any
suit referenced in subsection (a), the full Congress may pass a
concurrent resolution declaring its view of the proper interpretation
of the Act of Congress at issue, clarifying Congress's intent or
clarifying Congress's findings of fact, or both. If Congress does pass
such a concurrent resolution, the Federal or State court shall permit
the United States Congress, through the Office of Senate Legal Counsel,
to submit that resolution into the record of the case as a matter of
right.
(c) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of each Federal
or State court, including the Supreme Court of the United States, to
advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent
the disposition of any matter brought under subsection (a).
<all>