Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge (Specter)
Boston Glob ^ | 6/28/06

Posted on 06/28/2006 8:26:44 AM PDT by hipaatwo

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, said yesterday that he is ``seriously considering" filing legislation to give Congress legal standing to sue President Bush over his use of signing statements to reserve the right to bypass laws.

Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, made his comments after a Judiciary Committee hearing on signing statements, which are official documents that Bush has used to challenge the constitutionality of more than 750 laws when signing legislation .

Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous presidents combined. But he has never vetoed a bill, depriving Congress of any chance to override his judgment. If Congress had the power to sue Bush, Specter said, the Supreme Court could determine whether the president's objections are valid under the Constitution.

``There is a sense that the president has taken the signing statements far beyond the customary purviews," Specter said at the hearing. He added that ``there's a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes, excluding the provisions he doesn't like. . . . The president has the option under the Constitution to veto or not."

But a lawyer for the administration, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman, testified that Bush has shown Congress respect by using signing statements instead of vetoes when he has concerns about parts of bills.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: analsphincter; angusmacspecter; bush; congress; govwatch; rino; specter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-236 next last
To: JerseyDvl

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.


101 posted on 06/28/2006 9:36:09 AM PDT by nitejohnboy (note to all you old timers in House and Senate: get out or we'll throw you out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Great idea...


102 posted on 06/28/2006 9:36:24 AM PDT by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mcvey

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.


103 posted on 06/28/2006 9:36:31 AM PDT by pgyanke (Christ embraces sinners; liberals embrace the sin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ryde
The executive branch can be required by the courts to do so.

How?

104 posted on 06/28/2006 9:36:39 AM PDT by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
I don't see how there could be an issue for the courts merely on the basis of the statement. That would be advisory, there has to be an injured party for a case.

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.

105 posted on 06/28/2006 9:37:16 AM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

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.


106 posted on 06/28/2006 9:42:38 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

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.


107 posted on 06/28/2006 9:43:25 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Huck; mcvey

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?


108 posted on 06/28/2006 9:44:34 AM PDT by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
I meant a court couldn't hear a case merely on the signing statement as such a court ruling would be "advisory".

I thought your previous post could be misconstrued to mean that one could sue over the statement.

109 posted on 06/28/2006 9:45:53 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

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.


110 posted on 06/28/2006 9:46:07 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pox

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?


111 posted on 06/28/2006 9:46:37 AM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Egad he's such an a$$! The only reason the jerk keeps getting elected is the DEMOCRAT vote!


112 posted on 06/28/2006 9:52:39 AM PDT by cake_crumb (One presidential visit to Baghdad is worth 1000 pathetic declarations of defeat from the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Then the Republicans in Pennsylvania should find another candidate and start the move to replace Specter the next election cycle.

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.

113 posted on 06/28/2006 9:55:39 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
I meant a court couldn't hear a case merely on the signing statement as such a court ruling would be "advisory". I thought your previous post could be misconstrued to mean that one could sue over the statement.

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.

114 posted on 06/28/2006 9:55:44 AM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac
IMHO the founders actually did intend for Congress to be the preeminent branch of government.

Considering how this flies in the face of three co-equal branches of government, could you please provide a citation that supports your opinion?

115 posted on 06/28/2006 9:56:44 AM PDT by pgyanke (Christ embraces sinners; liberals embrace the sin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
Just called Specter's office and let him know, in the most ladylike terms just what I thought of his constant betrayal of America.

Toll free # for the US Capitol.....1-888-355-3588

116 posted on 06/28/2006 9:57:12 AM PDT by OldFriend (I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.....and My Heart to the Soldier Who Protects It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

I can't believe what a moron, Specter has shown himself to be...


117 posted on 06/28/2006 9:57:54 AM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton

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.


118 posted on 06/28/2006 9:59:39 AM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Huck

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.


119 posted on 06/28/2006 10:02:34 AM PDT by cake_crumb (One presidential visit to Baghdad is worth 1000 pathetic declarations of defeat from the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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.


120 posted on 06/28/2006 10:05:19 AM PDT by thelastvirgil (Incumbent politicians: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-236 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson