Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, would provide a significant role for the Supreme Court and lower courts in reaction to statements that Presidents make in signing new legislation into law. On Wednesday, Specter introduced S. 3731, “the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006,” to begin congressional consideration of the idea. The text of the bill is here. Specter’s statement on introduction of the measure can be found here; the statement is taken from the Congressional Record. President Bush has been drawn into a rising controversy over aggressive use of such statements, particularly to signal his unwillingness to follow some parts of new laws that he has signed.
Specter’s bill would create a rule of statutory interpretation, to be followed by the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts, that they may not rely upon a presidential signing statements in determining what a federal statute means. Specter noted that the Supreme Court’s reliance on such statements “has been sporadic and unpredictable.”
The proposal next would allow Congress to go into court — presumably, U.S. District Court — “to seek a declaratory judgment on the legality of presidential signing statements that seek to modify — or even to nullify — a duly enacted statute,” as Specter put it.
Finally, in a provision that would apply only to the Supreme Court, the bill would give Congress “the power to intervene in any case in the Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a presidential signing statement for that act was issued.” Specter commented: “That way, if the Court is trying to determine the meaning or the constitutionality of an act, the Congress gets a voice in the debate.”
Some of these ideas track proposals made earlier this week by an American Bar Association task force, discussed here.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY