Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing On “Presidential
Signing Statements”
June 27, 2006
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. This Administration
has issued signing statements at an astonishing rate to express the
view that it does not have to comply with the laws that Congress has
passed. This unprecedented use of so-called constitutional signing statements
raises very serious concerns, and I am glad that this Committee is taking
the time to examine it closely.
We are all familiar with the controversy surrounding the signing statement
on the congressional ban on torture, and I want to explore that example
briefly because it really cuts to the core of the issue. This nation
had a protracted, public debate about torture that spanned several years.
As a result of that debate, the Administration withdrew a memo arguing
that the President had the constitutional authority to disregard the
already existing ban on torture. And, despite reported back room attempts
by the Administration to water it down, late last year Congress passed
yet another clear prohibition on torture, no exceptions.
You would think that would be the end of the matter. But what happened?
The President responded by issuing a signing statement making clear
that he would retain the right not to comply with that law if he chose
not to do so. He made clear that he had no respect for congressional
authority in this area, and that he would do whatever he pleased despite
Congress’ clear direction.
Now, as the witness testimony has pointed out, this Administration
certainly isn’t the first to issue signing statements, nor is
it the first to express concern about the constitutionality of particular
provisions of laws in signing statements.
But this Administration has taken this approach far more often than
prior Administrations, and it has done so to advance a view of executive
power that, as far as I can tell, knows no bounds. What’s more,
this Administration has shown no sense of obligation to resolve thorny
constitutional questions by trying to facilitate judicial review of
questionable provisions. And it has denied Congress the opportunity
to overcome a presidential veto. It has instead assigned itself the
sole responsibility for deciding which laws it will comply with, and
in the process has taken upon itself the powers of all three branches
of government.
As one law professor recently put it in a piece on signing statements,
“Because President Bush has found constitutional problems with
statutes so readily and because he takes such a radically expansive
view of his own power, President Bush’s position amounts to a
claim that he is impervious to the laws that Congress enacts.”
Mr. Chairman, I believe that is dangerous to our system of government.
So I’m glad we are here talking about it today.
| 