Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge (Specter)

Boston Glob ^ | 6/28/06

[stopem]

What else should we expect from Specter who passed the Kennedy,Mccain and Graham Senate bill? McCain, Graham and Specter all cut from the same clothe.

[FreedomNeocon]

Good thing Bush threw a real conservative under the bus to REALLY campaign and stump for Specter in Nov '04.

:(

[Just A Nobody]

Just because Billybob asserts it, doesn't make it so. He offered jack squat to back it up. His entire post begs the question.

I thought FR etiquette requires pinging the member you are discussing?

Billybob said, President Bush is only expressing his opinion about the law.

If you would read one of his signing statements you would find this to be true. You will find from one, in particular, CONgress was attempting to usurp the executive power and priviledge.

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863.....The Act provides resources needed to fight the war on terror, (which is why he could not veto it and CONgress knew it)

• Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit...unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority.
  The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

• Section 8059 of the Act provides that.....the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

• Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

• The executive branch shall construe section 8104..... in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.

• The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power,

• Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law. Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate.

  GEORGE W. BUSH
  THE WHITE HOUSE,
  December 30, 2005.
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

[Just A Nobody]

I hear ya!

[Jameison]

"I can only imagine what we would now be saying if this was Clinton who was doing this."

From what I can gather BJ Klinton used to do that regularly, without as much as a whimper from the arrogant, power drunk Arlene Sphincter.

[dirtboy]

Nothing like fighting usurpation with usurpation.

[David Isaac]

I would be just as curious as to the origination of the term co-equal. I don't think you would have to dig very far into the past to find the first usage of that term.

I do not believe that Article I of the Constitution deals with the legislative branch out of pure chance. It is by far the most lengthy of the three articles, as most significant powers are given to that branch, as in the power of the purse. Though listening to today's political pundits. one has to wonder if there is anyone alive who knows that it is not the President who decides where the
money is to be spent.

The point is that over time the Congress has ceded more and more power to the executive branch. Some may view this as being healthy. I, for one, do not. None of this usurption has been legitimized by changes to the Constitution, so Congress, if it so wished, could take back the power that it has relinquished.

[Jameison]

"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."

Agree with all that.
Sphincter is full of hubris and he is cruising for a bruising.

[caseinpoint]

Couple of points. First, I know nothing about signing statements but if the signing statements are just opinions (like an IRS opinion letter?), does it shield individuals from liability under the law if they follow the signing statement opinion? Or does it partially shield a defendant by negating intent to break the law? Taxpayers can still be liable for taxes, if not penalties, if they rely on IRS opinion letters so I am assuming parties down the line from presidential statements can theoretically be hailed into court for violating the law even if they were following the signing statement. In that case, I see no reason why the Senate should have the right to sue the president anymore than it should have the right to sue the IRS for its opinions.

Second, is this the same senate (and house) that frequently exempts itself from the more onerous laws it imposes on others? Should I be able to sue to get the feds to live with the same social security benefits they will on non-civil employees, or the same anti-discrimination laws? What's good for the goose applies to the gander? (I won't hold my breath.)

[Jameison]

"Non-partisan, unlike Billy Bob."


"Non-partisan"?
You mean BDS moonbat? Like Kos?

[dirtboy]

President Bush is not saying, as President Nixon did say, that he will not follow a law duly passed by Congress. President Bush is only expressing his opinion about the law.

I don't often disagree with you, CB, but I do here. Bush is clearly stating that he has no intention of adhering to elements of a law that he has just signed when he issues the signing statements. He has a recourse under the Constitution - to veto the bill in question. It would be one thing if Bush actually had vetoed any bills, or was dealing with a bill that has been overridden. But he has shown no sign that he has exhausted the normal Constitutional recourses to objectionable legislation that he believes intrudes on his Constitutionally-enumeratd powers.

And one other thing - if he is going to make a defense of the Constitution over his enumerated powers, he also needs to adhere to the limits the Consitution places on his office and on the larger federal government. That has not happened.

[cake_crumb]

Look: I voted for Toomey. I also voted for President Bush. Since politics seems to be half of what I do, I understand that President Bush's endorsement, and even Senator Santorum's endorsement, were NOT what got this POS elected. He was hare BEFORE either of them were in a position to endorse him for ANYTHING. He's been a senator since 1980. President Bush has been president since 2000. Rick Santorum has been a senator since 1995. Bob Casey is out for Santorum's blood. Are you telling PA voters to GIVE it to him?

I'm sick of th ebrainless statements saying Spector wouldn't be in office if Bush/Santorum hadn't endorsed him. He was IN OFFICE LONG BEFORE EITHER ONE ENDORSED HIM BECAUSE PA VOTERS TEND TO BE STUPID UNION VOTERS WHO VOTE THEIR POCKETBOOKS AND SPECTOR BRINGS HOME THE PORK!!

BTW, my family has been friendly with the Casey family for many years. I like Bob Casey. I prefer Rick Santorum KEEP his senate seat.

[Jameison]

"Just because Billybob asserts it, doesn't make it so. He offered jack squat to back it up."

And you have offered even more squat to prove that it isn't so.

[David Isaac]

My first thought exactly. Use an evil to fight an evil. Problem is, what do you have when you get done?

Oh well, all the other kids are doing it. I doubt if your kids get away with that excuse.

[dirtboy]

The signing statement is simple, congress makes the laws, the signing statement says how the president intends to carry it out, or in some cases, if he even can carry it out, or if he has concerns about the ability to carry it out.

I disagree. Clinton took the established administrative process of issuing executive orders to create laws. Bush is taking the established administrative process of issuing signing statements to nullify portions of laws he has just signed. Flip sides of the same coin. And both are usurpations of power.

[steve-b]

Sphincter expects Bush to roll over and rubber stamp every possibly unconstitutional law he passes?

Well, what else can he do? His veto pen seems to be in one of those warehoused crates next to the Ark of the Covenant, or underneath one of those shiny crystals in Superman's Fortress of Solitude, or tucked into King Arthur's crown on the Isle of Avalon, or something.

[cake_crumb]

I don't often disagree with you...so I assume you just need to do some research on the history and use of signing statements, which have been in use for most of this country's existence, so that you are in possession of the facts.

[David Isaac]

Indeed President Bush has done some rather odd things and omitted some things that should have been done. Rooting out Clintonites and undoing some of their hideousness would have been nice. But, no vetoes in over 6 years. Hmmmm.

[dirtboy]

The signing statement is simple, congress makes the laws, the signing statement says how the president intends to carry it out, or in some cases, if he even can carry it out, or if he has concerns about the ability to carry it out.

See my post #175.

In addition, regarding Tony Snow pointing out the number of times that Slick issued signing statements ... I really would hope we don't look to the Clinton Admin for moral justification here, given their history and ours standing up against his abuses of power.

[smokeyb]

Specter is the problem. Not Bush.

Bush came to PA to campaign for Specter when it looked like he was going to loose the primary. If Bush and Santorum would have kept their nose out of the primary you wouldn't have this.