A SIGNATURE OPPORTUNITY

By Byron L. McAllister

For some years—I have no idea how many—when a bill is passed into law and is presented for the signature of the President of the U.S. the signer has also indulged himself in what is called a “signing statement.” Recently signing statements have come into very frequent use, and the media are full of superficial information about them, although the examples due to previous Presidents didn't get much press. Perhaps that's because those previous Presidents used them a bit differently, but not just anybody—not I, anyhow—knows how to dig out those old signing statements to make sure. It's pretty clear what the present usage is, however. When a bill is passed into law and requires the present President's signature as its final flourish—quite an essential step, so we can tell he didn't intend to veto the bill—it often happens that the President is not in full agreement with the apparent intent of the bill. So he writes a “signing statement,” asserting his intention, actually claimed as his right, to ignore or re-interpret those portions of the bill he finds ambiguous or otherwise irksome.

Does anybody realize what a glorious opportunity this opens up for the rest of us? Let's suppose Junior is writing his annual letter to Santa, asserting, as he traditionally must, that he has been good this year, and deserves lots of toys. In addition to his mere signature, Junior can append a “signing statement,” informing Santa that he—Junior—reserves to himself the decision as to what such ambiguous terms as “good” and “lots” mean. If it can be shown that signing statements have the force of law, then Junior has Santa over a barrel. Santa can check his list twice if he likes, but the ultimate arbiter of what Junior deserves will clearly be Junior himself.

Consider the following imaginary scenario. Or rather the following two imaginary scenarios, since I can't decide which of two alternative situations to discuss, and since they are so parallel that I kind of hate to discuss both of them. The first is this: suppose a group of (presumably) conservative citizens battles their way into the White House demanding that the President “endorse” the Ten Commandments. They present him with a document listing them, and ask him to sign on the dotted line provided below. Now, several items in the list are vague enough that they have required extensive interpretation through the years. Indeed, preachers of every stripe spend time interpreting them to us. So there may be ambiguity. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” doesn't actually mention any exceptions, yet we have a long tradition of them, permitting warfare, the death penalty, and, in the case of animals, lapses from strict vegetarianism. If the president wants the people who presented him with the document to vote for him, he can just go ahead and sign, but then he could add a signing statement, indicating that he wishes to be free to interpret the commandments in his own way. In order not to appear to be picking on the religious right, I'll tell you the other imaginary scenario, as well: suppose a group of (presumably) liberal citizens battles their way into the White House demanding that the President “endorse” the U. S. Constitution, amendments and all. The President can no more afford to refuse to sign this than the other document, but, again, if he has reservations, and he very well may, he can add a signing statement, indicating that he is free to interpret such expressions as “militia” or “infringed” according to his own brilliant conception of their meanings.

Wonderful freedom!

And, you know something? Junior and the President aren't the only ones who can profit from this discovery. Business in America is conducted—for the most part—by means of signed contracts. But if one party to a contract wishes to free him- or herself from potential ambiguities or onerous obligations, he or she can add to that signature a signing statement , reserving the right to interpret the contract exactly as he or she pleases. Imagine how wonderfully smoothly business would proceed if this practice becomes common.

What does all this have to do with mystery writing, which I admit I don't have to stick to, but I try to anyway, since this is, after all, a mystery website. Well, it has a great deal to do with writing, first of all simply because book publishing and even magazine article publishing usually involve contracts, and writers have to be aware that their publishers may have, at the time of signing, created signing statements, reserving the right to interpret the contract exactly as they please. Secondly, authors need to be aware that by simply creating a signing statement to go with their signature on the contract, they can assert their own right to interpret the contract as they please. And for readers of mysteries who don't think any of this applies to them, let me ask all of you this: do you own any books signed by the writers? And have you checked to see exactly what is in their signing statements? Better get to it, or you may be headed for a big surprise one of these days!