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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-236 next last
To: new yorker 77

I think Specter may be on the correct side of this one. A signing statement seems like a quasi-line-item veto. This is about the executive vs the legislative, and I think it's and appropriate debate. But yeah, "Specter is a douche" is much simpler and easier an argument.


21 posted on 06/28/2006 8:37:00 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

Really which constitution, ours or the hidden Scottish one?


22 posted on 06/28/2006 8:37:53 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
Specter is the problem. Not Bush.

Reagan campaigned for RINO's.

The difference. GOP RINO's did not stab Reagan in the back like Specter is doing to Bush.
23 posted on 06/28/2006 8:37:54 AM PDT by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
The first thing the Republicans in the Senate is to remove Specter from the Judiciary Committee chairman post. This RINO is a real thorn in our side.

Then the Republicans in Pennsylvania should find another candidate and start the move to replace Specter the next election cycle. He is a RAT.
24 posted on 06/28/2006 8:38:29 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

``Signing statements are an appropriate means by which the president fulfills his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Specter is a Clymer, we all agree, but the passive-aggressive childishness of signing something, then saying you won't enforce it is exactly the opposite of 'faithful execution.'

Bush 'enforcement' of immigration laws shows where this leads.


25 posted on 06/28/2006 8:38:37 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Spectre: "I will bring down Bush AND the GOP with my latest "golden bullet" plan."

26 posted on 06/28/2006 8:38:49 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pox

The Congress does in fact have the power to "make all laws." Seems to me "signing statements" are questionable.


27 posted on 06/28/2006 8:38:54 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

When is the cancer going to finish eating his brain?


28 posted on 06/28/2006 8:39:35 AM PDT by D-Chivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Snarlin Arlen is one DISLOYAL, UNGRATEFUL POS!!


29 posted on 06/28/2006 8:39:37 AM PDT by Suzy Quzy ("When Cabals Go Kaboom"....upcoming book on Mary McCarthy's Coup-Plotters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; All

In discussing Angus MacSpecter, the NO PROFANITY rule is torture.


30 posted on 06/28/2006 8:39:55 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Congress can pass laws all they want but that does not mean the laws they pass are constitutional.


31 posted on 06/28/2006 8:40:16 AM PDT by Pox (If it's a Coward you are searching for, you need look no further than the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
allowing for them to be used to strike down parts of a bill.

That's the issue right there. The president does not have constitutional authority to strike down parts of a law. He can veto or sign. That's it.

32 posted on 06/28/2006 8:40:29 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

first veto?


33 posted on 06/28/2006 8:40:40 AM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
I am not sure this is constitutional, it sounds traditional. In fact, with regards to budget bills, congress forbids the executive branch from NOT spending money- this goes back to Nixon- the President would not spend all the budget dollars to balance the budget.

It sound like what Bush is doing is using this tradition in lieu of a line item veto. As soon as he hammers the line item veto out with congress, he will probably stop this practice.
34 posted on 06/28/2006 8:40:41 AM PDT by 11th Commandment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

I hate Arlen.


35 posted on 06/28/2006 8:40:50 AM PDT by JerseyDvl (The New York Times : Paper of Jihadists everywhere-All negative news and none of the positive spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pox

The president can sign a law or veto it. He can't alter it.


36 posted on 06/28/2006 8:41:06 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Peach; holdonnow; Bahbah; Mo1; Txsleuth; AliVeritas

HOLY @#$% ping...has he completly lost his last reaming brain cell?


37 posted on 06/28/2006 8:41:12 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
Once again, Arlen Spector has demonstrated that he is dumb as a hoe handle when it comes to constitutional law.

Back during the Administration of Richard Nixon (Remember him? He was in all the papers.), the President refused to spend certain funds that had been authorized by Congress, because he disagreed with the purpose. He claimed Executive authority to do that.

Assorted folks filed suit, and in due course the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was right and the President was wrong, and the funds had to be spent as designated. But when you apply that thinking to "signing statements," the logic falls apart.

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.

And if it is possible to file suit to force a politician to stop expressing his opinion, most of the Senate Democrats and an occasional so-called Republican like Spector, deserve that treatment long before President Bush does.

P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Tribal Loyalties and Public Lies"

38 posted on 06/28/2006 8:41:55 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (http://www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

I loved the way the chairman of AT&T the other day threw back stuff at Specter when he tried bullying to answer a question the way he wanted in answered. Specter really made an ass out of himself to the point I ALMOST felt sorry for him.


39 posted on 06/28/2006 8:42:37 AM PDT by The South Texan (The Democrat Party and the leftist (ABCCBSNBCCNN NYLATIMES)media are a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

uuuhh...that would be "remaining"...lol


40 posted on 06/28/2006 8:43:53 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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