- [Narrator] What we're going to do
in this video is talk about presidential signing statements.
And these are statements that presidents issue
when they are signing a bill into law.
They don't always do this.
In fact, it was quite infrequent
for a very long time.
The first signing statement was issued by James Monroe.
But it was quite infrequent until we get
to the modern times.
And starting with Ronald Reagan, they become much,
much more common for presidents of both parties.
And even though it is not considered
by legal scholars to be legally binding.
So, not legally binding, presidents still do it.
And they have multiple reasons.
Sometimes, it acts as a bit of an explainer
for why they are signing the law.
They might say how great the law
is, why they think it's a good idea.
But sometimes, they also say what problems there
are in the law.
And in an extreme case, they can sometimes say
that there are parts of the law that are unconstitutional.
And those parts that are unconstitutional,
the Executive Branch might not follow exactly
the way the law states.
Well an obvious question is, if it's not legally binding,
why does the President even take the trouble?
Well, the explainer purpose might
be political, or it might rally up the base.
But issuing a statement on the problems,
it's the President's way of signaling
to the entire Executive Branch and to Congress
that hey, look, don't be surprised when I don't follow
the letter of the law of the parts
that I think are unconstitutional.
And to make this tangible, let's look
at some actual signing statements.
This is a signing statement
by President George W. Bush in 2006.
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 972,
the Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 2005.
This act enhances our ability to combat trafficking
in persons by extending and improving prosecutorial
and diplomatic tools, and also
adds new protections for victims.
So that part's kind of an explainer.
But then it goes on to say, Section 104 purports
to require the Secretary of State,
prior to voting for a new or reauthorized peacekeeping
mission under the auspices of a multilateral organization
to submit to the Congress a specific report.
The Executive Branch shall construe
this reporting requirement in a manner consistent
with the President's Constitutional authority
as Commander in Chief and the President's constitutional
authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.
And so what they're saying is, hey,
hold on a second here, Congress.
You want our Secretary of State, before making
this decision, to submit a report every time?
You're kind of starting to muck with how
the Executive Branch executes there.
So this is signaling a bit to the Congress
as, hey, don't be surprised if we don't follow this
exactly the way that you are expecting.
You have a similar tone in an executive order
from President Obama in 2009.
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1105,
the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.
This bill completes the work of last year
by providing the funding necessary
for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.
So once again, a bit of an explainer.
But then it goes on to say, the Department of Justice
has advised that a small number
of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns.
And then it goes on to list actually several bullet points,
and I'm just going to give you one
of them, just so you get a sense of things.
Legislative aggrandizements,
committee approval requirements.
So, when you aggrandize yourself,
it's making yourself more than you really are.
And so a legislative aggrandizement
is the legislative branch trying
to go beyond their legislative powers.
Numerous provisions of the legislation
purport to condition the authority
of officers to spend or reallocate funds
on the approval of congressional committees.
These are impermissible forms
of legislative aggrandizement in the execution
of the laws other than by enactment of statutes.
Therefore, although my administration
will notify the relevant committees before taking
the specified actions and will accord
the recommendations of such committees
all appropriate and serious consideration,
spending decisions shall not be treated
as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.
So, here in this signing statement,
President Obama's saying, look,
this is overstepping the bounds of legislative authority
to tell us how we will spend these things.
We'll take your advice under consideration,
but dictating how to execute
is not the job of the Legislative Branch.
So I'll leave you there.
I encourage you to look up
more presidential signing statements.
They're readily available on the internet.
They're part of the Federal Registry.
And think about why presidents do this.
And, what role does this have?
And why this is considered
an informal power of the President.