Posted on 06/28/2006 8:26:44 AM PDT by hipaatwo
I hate Arlen.
.........
Poor Arlen. Imagine having to live with that name all thru school. That probably twisted his little mind. Now all those meds have certainly turned him into THE FLY. His time has come and gone, gone, gone.
Great idea...
The key to this discussion is co-equal branches of government. The Congress can't pass a law forcing the Executive to not execute his Constitutional duties. If they want to amend the Constitution, so be it. However, the Executive has just as much authority to Constitutional interpretation as the other two branches of government and he can make his views and challenges to laws and their amendments known.
How?
I do recall on at least one occasion, where Bush referred to one of his statements as advisory.
As in, he actually used the word "advisory statement" to describe one signing statement he has signed.
ONE MORE TIME - Bush gets hoisted by his own petard.
Bush CAMPAIGNED for this creep against another candidate in the Republican primary in Pennsylvania.
Ironic that Spectral Specter has come back to haunt the hand that fed him.
Specter did a great job of helping us get Alito and Roberts confirmed.
Yes he did. And he deserves praise for it. He would get more praise if he got more nominees through committee.
But he is carrying water, as usual, for the anti-American left, with his hearings on wiretaps and his "concern" for civil liberties, and his putting forth the Kennedy bill on immigration.
I'd rather have Kyl as chairman, who is next in line if Grassely turned it down to ramain chairman of Finance. We wouldn't have all this leftist crap and bending over backwards to be fair to Leahy, et al. Give me a Jesse Helms type anyday.
I gotta go along with you on this one. I view this signing statement thing as being at least questionable, constutionally speaking. Veto, I see in the Constitution, the other I have yet to find.
My question is, why is the President making such use of this thing? Veto the d--- bill and send it back to have Congress remove the offending portion. Does anyone seriously think that two-thirds of the GOP controlled house is going to override? If they did, I would have to question the veto.
IMHO the founders actually did intend for Congress to be the preeminent branch of government. It was Marshall who threw one menkey wrench into that plan. And may Presidents since, who have advanced the concept of the "imperial presidency". The executive branch has become too powerful, mostly because government has become so complicated, don't you know.
Conservatives, on a conservative website, would, I would hope, be more interested in Constitutional questions. There have been many such issues raised in recent times and arguments seem to be much more based on political party and/or religious grounds. All of these issues seem to have one commen denominator, they put conservatives at each other's throats.
WHY?
I thought your previous post could be misconstrued to mean that one could sue over the statement.
Specter is a legal moron.
How the heck did he ever get placed on the judiciary committee. His staffers are all liberals, HE is a full liberal.
It would not surprise me if Specter is the one pushing this issue to help democrats in 2006 and 2008.
These are the legal equivalent of ADVISORY opinions. If he is wrong, then the legislature needs to leave it to the JUDICIARY to do that legal interpritation.
Thanks for your explaination. Personally, I had never heard the term "signing statement" before today, but I see why he signed CFR and let it go to court now. Is there a list of other things he has signed with these statements available?
Egad he's such an a$$! The only reason the jerk keeps getting elected is the DEMOCRAT vote!
They found another candidate-Toomey who the "voters" rejected. (no further on this)
This azzhat can do a heck of a lot of damage in the next 4 1/2 years.
I don't think anyone can sue just over a signing statement (but I'll concede I could be wrong), but it could carry the same consideration as a friend of the court brief, and be cited in the case.
Considering how this flies in the face of three co-equal branches of government, could you please provide a citation that supports your opinion?
Toll free # for the US Capitol.....1-888-355-3588
I can't believe what a moron, Specter has shown himself to be...
You would think this POS was running this Nov., to bad he isn't. I'd be willing to sacrifice one of our seats, he has been good for nothing except for an occasional Judicial hearing.
Um. You may be on the wrong side of this one if you think signing statements are unconstitutional and that Arlen is working within a Constitutional framework.
We can root for President Bush, and trash the POS from Pa. all we want. I personally despise Spectre, but just imagine a President Clinton -- either one of them -- using signing statements to this extent. We would all be screaming bloody murder, and calling for their heads.
The elites in the senate have always struggled with the executive for power; probably always will, given their arrogance. However, right is right, and there is a reason for the veto provision. The president should use the veto for legislation he doesn't agree with, and take his chances on congressional overrides.
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.