This article explores the use of presidential signing statements during the George W. Bush administration. Given the existence of united government for much of Bush's term in office, why could the Bush administration and Congress not reach agreements on issues where much common ground should have existed? Its principal argument contends that the administration's use of presidential signing statements constitutes a new and important tool in the executive's efforts to influence legislation and expand the powers of the presidency. The paper employs case study and interview-based research to explore why the Bush administration has chosen to pursue this unprecedented path.

This article explores the use of presidential signing statements during the George W. Bush administration. Given the existence of united government for much of Bush's term in office, why could the Bush administration and Congress not reach agreements on issues where much common ground should have existed? Its principal argument contends that the administration's use of presidential signing statements constitutes a new and important tool in the executive's efforts to influence legislation and expand the powers of the presidency. The paper employs case study and interview-based research to explore why the Bush administration has chosen to pursue this unprecedented path.

This article explores the use of presidential signing statements during the George W. Bush administration. Given the existence of united government for much of Bush's term in office, why could the Bush administration and Congress not reach agreements on issues where much common ground should have existed? Its principal argument contends that the administration's use of presidential signing statements constitutes a new and important tool in the executive's efforts to influence legislation and expand the powers of the presidency. The paper employs case study and interview-based research to explore why the Bush administration has chosen to pursue this unprecedented path. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

Cette thèse s’intéresse à l’utilisation par le 43ème président des États-Unis, George W. Bush, des déclarations de promulgation, ces documents écrits qui permettent au président américain de donner son opinion sur une loi qu’il vient de promulguer et dans lesquels il peut faire part de sa réticence à faire appliquer certaines des dispositions de la loi en question car il les juge potentiellement inconstitutionnelles, et ce quand bien même il a accepté de promulguer la loi en question. Une telle pratique peut sembler contraire à l’esprit même de la Constitution américaine, qui contraint le président à « veiller à la fidèle exécution des lois » qu’il promulgue sans lui laisser la possibilité de sélectionner au sein desdites lois les disposions qu’il souhaite ou ne souhaite pas voir appliquées.A travers un travail de comparaison des déclarations de promulgation de George W. Bush à celles de ses prédécesseurs à la Maison-Blanche et une analyse de la capacité théorique et pratique de cet outil présidentiel à influer sur le processus d’exécution des lois, on se proposera de démontrer que les déclarations de promulgation sont davantage l’outil rhétorique d’une affirmation des pouvoirs de la présidence visant à renforcer cette dernière sur le long terme qu’un levier d’action immédiate permettant à la présidence de mettre la main sur l’exécution des lois. / This thesis focuses on the use of presidential signing statements by the Bush 43 Administration. Presidential signing statements are written documents that allow the President to give his opinion of a bill he signed into law and to say that even though he willingly signed the law, he does not necessarily plan on executing all of its provisions as he believes some of them to be potentially unconstitutional. Such a behavior may seem problematic constitutionally speaking as the American Constitution forces the President to « faithfully execute the laws » without affording him the opportunity to pick and choose the provisions he wants to execute.Through a comparison with the signing statements of previous presidents as well as an analysis of both the theoretical and practical capacity of presidential signing statements to allow the President to control the execution of the laws, this thesis will describe signing statements as tools of the rhetorical presidency that allow the executive to assert and defend its constitutional prerogatives in order to strengthen them in the long run, rather than weapons of the administrative presidency with an immediate effect on the execution of the laws.

No description available.