Let sleeping dogs lie

This does not sound like a step forward to me:

George W. Bush did not invent the document known as the presidential signing statement; he inherited it. Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, and even James Monroe, in 1830, authored the statements, which spell out the president's sometimes controversial interpretation of the very law he's signing. But no president has used signing statements quite like Bush.

Although the president has not issued more statements in total than any other president, he has challenged more than 750 laws in more than 100 signing statements. And he has used them to, in effect, challenge parts of laws, and challenge them more aggressively, than any president before him. Bush's liberal use of those statements first attracted attention in December 2005, when he signed a torture ban—but then added a statement reserving the right not to enforce the ban, alongside his signature. Since then, Congress has held a hearing to investigate Bush's use of the statements, a bipartisan advocacy group has condemned their use, and Democratic Rep. Barney Frank has introduced a bill that would allow Congress to override content in them that contradicts signed legislation.

Now, U.S. News has learned, an American Bar Association task force is set to suggest even stronger action. In a report to be released Monday, the task force will recommend that Congress pass legislation providing for some sort of judicial review of the signing statements. Some task force members want to simply give Congress the right to sue over the signing statements; other task force members will not characterize what sort of judicial review might ultimately emerge.

It sounds to me as if the people proposing these measures believe they are necessary to restrain the president. But, I'm not at all sure they will be helpful. As things stand now, as far as I know (subject to possible correction) neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ever paid any attention to a presidential signing statement when interpreting Congressional intent. In other words, at the moment it appears that presidential signing statements have no effect whatever on the court's interpretation of laws. It seems to me that to ask the courts to review the signing statements simply elevates to statements to a higher plateau than they already command.

I have a feeling it's best to let sleeping dogs lie in this case.