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 ...
We tried to get "Benedict Arlen" out last election, but Bush, the guy he wants to sue (see the loyalty here?), endorsed him. So did his antithesis, Rick Santorum, who was trying to be nice. We'd have a real American, Pat Toomey, as Senator now.
Thanks for the ping!
Wow, I didn't know/remember that. I was across the country at that time. I am sorry Toomey lost and more disgusted that Sphincter had the support of the whole GOP establishment.
It is my belief that the "GOP establishment" should stay the heck out of the primaries and let the people decide, which is the way it was intended.
You don't happen to live in or near John Murtha's district do you?
Twenty six years ago Reagan faced a very different political reality than Bush does today. He faced an overwhelmingly Democrat House and IIRC a small Dem majority in the Senate in the first term with a small GOP edge in the 2nd term.
The fact is that there just weren't that many Republicans to choose from in office so he did what he had to do.
Bush on the other hand, has enjoyed the luxury of GOP majorities. There was a strong challenger against Specter whose values matched Bush's, yet Bush (and Santorum) backed a very liberal incumbent. They both chose party over principle.
Isn't the primary when the PEOPLE choose the candidate? Bush and Santorum could have rid us of Specter just by staying nuetral and letting the people decide.
Is name calling and insults the only way that you can make a point?
Yeah, it was that close. We were on such a high because at one point around midnight, Toomey actually was ahead by a few thousand votes. It would have been a tremendous upset and a huge win for conservatives.
The party establishment here is very much RINO and they backed him and applied pressure to the local committees as well. Specter, with his penchant for bringing home the pork applied pressure by telling people that he would withhold money from their district. It was ugly.
The ads that Specter ran were outright lies when they weren't disingenuous insinuations. Then in addition to all of the other campaigning that Bush and Santorum did, they were both in Pittsburgh the week before the election and told people how important Specter was to the conservative cause. They flat out lied and people bought it, at least enough to give Specter a small edge.
Specter even campaigned to Democrats begging them to switch their registration to vote for him in the primary. One funny incident in Pittsburgh ---- Specter went to a REPUBLICAN Jewish group. Since these are typically Dems, he forgot where he was and asked them to switch to vote for him.
There were even Kerry-Specter signs thoughout the eastern part of the state. It really wasn't a surprise because there weren't as many differences between those two as there were between Specter and Bush.
No, I'm not in Murtha's district. I'm two or three districts away. I do know Diana Irey and my gun rights group has always supported her and will again this time, especially this time. The founder and leader of our group is also a Vietnam Marine veteran who actually fought in Vietnam as a helicopter door gunner. He's used to taking enemy fire and doesn't take kindly to traitorous SOBs like Murtha.
Actually, I don't think that's what I said. I said it seems like a quasi-line-item veto. I chose my words carefully. I certainly never said it was "suspicious," and I said it "seems" on purpose, as opposed to saying it "is". It remains to be seen, but from what I've read so far, it's an appropriate debate. If the president is in the right, then there's nothing to worry about.
Non-partisan meaning I'm not advocating for one side or the other. A lot of posters tend to take a side in the debate and then go looking for info/arguments to defend their side. I see this as fed gov #2 (executive) versus fed gov #1 (Congress), and so I don't see it as a partisan issue. Oh sure, a lot of the usual suspects are involved, so it certainly is something to be watched with a skeptical eye, but I'm not rushing to the president's defense either. I'm interested to see what transpires.
Because I haven't asserted that it isn't so. I believe my exact words were that Billy bob's post #38 "may not be correct." May not.
I don't think so. I think Specter is interested in the power of the Senate. That's his club, and he's advocating for the Senate against the executive. I think that's all this is about, but we shall see.
Don't you worry; Hillary is not going to be president. But as to the attitude here, it's very simple. The one body that has managed to put the breaks on the GOP has been the Senate. The House is more conservative. But the Senate, thru fair means and foul, has been able to obstruct a few things here and there. Therefore, a lot of Bush supporters are for as much presidential power as is needed to thwart the Senate. Anyone who goes against the president is a "douche."
Kerry definitely would have been a nightmare. But GWB has not been a bed of roses. The American people were not demanding the RX entitlment that the president pushed for and got. The people weren't demanding campaign finance regulations that the president pushed for and got. And the president has yet to veto a single bill. That's actually pathetic when you think about it. But Kerry was so horrible to contemplate, that no one need second guess voting for GWB. We truly had no choice.
Toomey would have never acted this way? GW and Santorum reinstated this fool and now the chickens are coming home to roost.......
Oh I know, I live in PA. and voted for Toomey....I wanted the Rino SpecterD out of office to....
ping
Poetic justice. We should be so lucky every time this WH backs a rino over a conservative.
"A signing statement seems like a quasi-line-item veto."
I am not sure what you are saying here. A signing statement does not cause a re-vote in either house, much less both houses.
What a signing statement does is allows the President to offer his legal opinion based on what his advisers tell him.
Do you have any evidence that this has ever been used sucessfully in court to overrule a law, or a portion of a law?
One other question. Is the President not allowed freedom of speech?
"Seems to me the president can sign or veto, not alter and amend."
A signing statement does not alter or amend a bill. When the bill is signed the whole thing becomes law.
Thank you for that URL. It defined things very clearly.
What is this all about? The President can sign laws, veto them, or refuse to sign them in which case it's like a veto, right?
So if he signs them, but also writes a formal objection to provisions, what effect does this have on the law itself? Seems to me, none.
The only effect that I can think of is that agencies under the executive branch may use his statements to form policy about how it may or may not enforce any such law, which seems to be very well established practice and the prerogative of the executive as intended.
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.