Posted on 06/27/2006 4:11:18 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?
Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.
That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.
"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."
Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.
"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.
Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power — from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.
But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas., a former state judge.
"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."
But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.
Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.
"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"
Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.
Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.
Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.
Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.
What is inaccurate in it?
umm, the freaking title? Op Ed put forth as news? Nothing wrong with that for you? There is for me.
I suggest Sen. Spectre resign in protest. That'll teach the White House!
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Not this.
Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts
Thanks,
Maybe RINO specter had best take care of his own nest before he starts on someone else's....
He is a disgrace to PA. but with fast eddy as our (cough, cough) gov. we can't do anything else....
An old story rehashed for political purposes.
NEXT!
The whole premise is inaccurate. Let's look at this:
"Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power — from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions."
First there was no known domestic wiretapping, it all had to do with international communication to suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations. Second, what law requires white house officials to answer whatever question the Senate wishes to ask? Specter is grossly overstating things.
Congress tries to micromanage things with laws, and with these little statements, Bush dares congress to take him to the judicial branch to "settle things". Spectre whines about the practice, and then admits that unless he is willing to take the executive branch to court, he can't do much.
Bush is an "in your face president" and liberals getting a little blotchy in their faces.
And the same Arlene Sphincter who the White House helped fend off a primary challenge from a fellow Republican Member of Congress. And who Santorum helped in a total cave-in.
Thank you, Arlene.
The democrats CANNOT win in November. President Bush is toast if they do. I can't believe even the Republicans have so much hatred for him. It is a shame. Even President Clinton was not treated like this. Yes, he had to go through a hearing, but everyone knew nothing would come of it. There was no "out for blood" with President Clinton. I feel really sorry for President Bush sometimes.
Monticello, Sep 11, '04.
"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Hmmmmm?
Whom to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the Constitution?
Arlen Specter or Thomas Jefferson?
Tough call. </sarcasm>
He is a disgrace to PA. but with fast eddy as our (cough, cough) gov. we can't do anything else....
Pennsylvania politics is going down the tubes. I am scared of November elections. lol. I believe we will only have one RINO left. Yieks. I mean I don't see too much leverage in the Governor Race. Fast Eddie seems ok and poor Senator Santorum might as well move back to Virgina. This is quite a shame.
Maybe they're basing it on Scottish law, Arlen. You wouldn't have any problem with that, would you?
We don't need to loose a Republican seat, and we don't need to loose Santorum...there have been things he has done that I don't like, and I email him when he does these things to let him know I didn't like it....
But there are some in this state that really want casey in there, for whatever reasons they are not saying...and RINO specter will be buddy buddy with this RAT until he (specter) quits and fast eddy can appoint another RAT...
And YES PA gop is the pits!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.