February 5, 1986
TO: The Litigation Strategy Working Group
FROM:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
SUBJ: Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law.
At our last meeting, I was asked to draft a preliminar yproposal for implementing the idea of making fuller use of Presidential signing statements. This memorandum is a rough first effort in that direction.
<snip>
The novelty of the proposal previously discussed by this Group is the suggestion that Presidential signing statements be used to address questions of interpretation. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes law only when passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or enacted over his veto). Since the President's approval is just as important as that ofthe House or Senate, it seems to follow that the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress. Yet in interpreting statutes, both courts and litigants (including lawyers in the Executive branch) invariably speak of "legislative" or "congressional" intent. Rarely if ever do courts or litigants inquire into the President's intent. Why is this so?
<snip>
From the perspective of the Executive Branch, the issuance of interpretive signing statements would have two chief advantages.
First, it would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law. Second, by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history.
<more>
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BE5iZZr20dUJ:www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf+Presidential+%22signing+statement%22&hl=enGD discussion and news links here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=51252&mesg_id=51252