Signing statements not in Constitution

In his Aug. 20 letter Paul Stukel chided David Shroder for saying that President Bush's use of signing statements is justification for impeachment.

Stukel claimed the practice of presidents adding signing statements goes all the way back to Presidents Monroe, Tyler, Polk and Grant. Stukel then went on to charge that President Clinton added more signing statements than President Bush.

As further evidence that signing statements are not an impeachable offense, Stukel cited a memo from President Clinton's White House counsel, Bernie Nussbaum, that claims the Department of Justice had "opined that the Constitution provided authority for the president to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law."

Stukel is being disingenuous when he cites this opinion because in almost all cases where the president adds a signing statement, it is not because he believes that the Congress has sent him an unconstitutional law.

The president has sworn to protect the Constitution, so why would he sign a bill that he considered unconstitutional? Nowhere in Article 1, Section 7 does the Constitution give a president the right to add signing statements.

The Constitution reads, "Every bill passed by the House and Senate, shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the President of the United States. If he approves, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections."

Because the Constitution does not give a president the right to add signing statements to bills, David Shroder was correct to call for impeachment. The fact the past presidents who used signing statements were not impeached does not excuse President Bush's violation of the Constitution.

Presidential signing statements are unconstitutional and impeaching a president may well be the only way to stop the practice.

Victor Darst

West Dundee