Law professor Richard Epstein has an op/ed up in the Chicago Times criticizing President Bush for his "unorthodox" use of signing statements. In the past, Epstein notes, Presidents attached statements to signed legislation mostly for the purposes of thanking supporters or complimenting Congress, etc. President Bush, however, has used signing statements more for defining his view of the law and how it will apply to his executive powers.

Epstein seems to feel that these signing statements are a threat to the checks and balances that limit the respective authorities of each branch of U.S. government. I'm not so sure that they are.

For one thing, what actual authority does a signing statement have? Certainly it indicates how the President will execute the law in question, but the Judicial branch can still rule as to the legality of any of the President's actions and Congress can still re-write legislation to make it more exact in response to any statements from the President. A signing statement from the President doesn't override any of that.

For another thing, the signing statements President Bush has attached to legislation (at least the ones I've read) are simply an outline of how the President feels the given legislation impacts his executive powers. The President has been a staunch advocate for the powers of the executive branch of our government and uses signing statements to indicate when he feels are unconstitutional requirements of his office.

As an example, in March of this year there was a lot of hubbub on the left about the President "exempting himself" from the Patriot Act through a signing statement. That wasn't exactly accurate, as this is what the President actually said in his statement:

'The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . .

Basically the President is pointing out that statutory law cannot force his office to furnish information contrary to the provisions set out by the Constitution. He is, in essence, saying that this law cannot supersede the Constitution.

What is so bad about that? Nothing.

I think Epstein's concern is misplaced. I don't think these signing statements can or will lead to where he's saying they will, nor do I think that President Bush has done anything all that extraordinary through his use of them.