i know the definition of it:
A signing statement is a written proclamation issued by the government executive power that accompanies the signing of a law passed by the government's legislature.
but im still not understanding what it is exactly. can anyone help clarify it with a simpler definition?
2006-09-07 15:42:52 · 6 answers · asked by Linda 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
ok thanks i get it now
so that's why signing statements are so controversial
2006-09-07 15:49:20 · update #1
The executive is responsible for enforcing the law, as written by the legislature. If there is some part of the law that is ambiguous, the executive may add a signing statement to clarify how they understand the law. That way, if there if the law comes under question, the court has the option of considering both the legislative history and the executive signing statement when the law is interpreted.
For example, say that a state law prohibits the use of weapons for assaults committed in public parks. The executive happens to enjoy fencing, so he issues a signing statement that says he will interpret the use of the term "weapon" to mean someone intended to harm another person, and not fencing foils used purely for consenting practice.
What the executive cannot legally do, however, is change the text of the law because of his personal opinions. For example, in the example above, if signing statement said: "Because of my 2nd Amendment beliefs, I refuse to enforce this law if the weapon used in the assault is a firearm." That is not resolving an ambiguity. That is stating that the executive intends to ignore the law as written.
2006-09-07 16:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The signing statement provides for the date of the effectivity of the law.
2006-09-07 15:45:46 · answer #2 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a way that Bush has of not obeying the law that he signed into law . Does that make sense to you ? Not to me either
2006-09-07 15:50:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
as King George the 2nd has used them its essentially a way to sign a bill in as a law while not having to follow it urself...but traditionally its been a way for the president to write his interpretation of the law, not as bad but still not a good idea
2006-09-07 15:46:25 · answer #4 · answered by jimmy V 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's when Bush passes a law that he wants all of america to obey but himself...... it is a way for him to cover his A S S so that he doesn't break the same laws he signs into action!!!!!
kinda of paradox isn't it????
2006-09-07 15:46:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a George Bush loophole. He's such a f u c k e r.
2006-09-07 15:45:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋