```

[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>
```