Walter Estes Dellinger III

“ In light of our constitutional history, we do not believe that the President is under any duty to veto legislation containing a constitutionally infirm provision, although of course it is entirely appropriate for the President to do so.
II. Separate and distinct from all the preceding categories of signing statement, and apparently even more controversial than any of them, is the use of such statements to create legislative (or "executive") history that is expected to be given weight by the courts in ascertain the meaning of statutory language. ”

“ Appendix So far as we have been able to determine, Presidential signing statements that purported to create legislative history for the use of the courts was uncommon -- if indeed it existed at all -- before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies. However, earlier Presidents did use signing statements to raise and address the legal or constitutional questions they believed were presented by the legislation they were signing. ”

“ A signing statement purporting to explain the intent of the legislation is, therefore, entitled at most to the limited consideration accorded to other kinds of post-passage legislative history, such as later floor statements, testimony or affidavits by legislators, or amicus briefs filed on behalf of members of Congress. ”

“ Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 733 (1986) (" [i] nterpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of 'execution' of the law.") . Signing statements have frequently expressed the President's intention to construe or administer a statute in a particular manner (often to save the statute from unconstitutionality) , and such statements have the effect of binding the statutory interpretation of other Executive Branch officials. ”

“ Pres. Doc. 1534, 1536 (1986) (interpreting language of Immigration Reform and Control Act) ; 22 id. 831, 832 (1986) (interpreting language of Safe Drinking Water Act) ; Issues Raised by Section 102 (c) (2) of H.R. 3792, 14 Op. ”