Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge (Specter)

Boston Glob ^ | 6/28/06

[monkeyshine]

Exactly.

[jwh_Denver]

"This is interesting from a constitutional perspective."

Essentially Bush is making the House and Senate meaningless by deciding which laws they pass he will enforce or not. King Bush?

[gondramB]

>>At first glance I would think this is more of a constitutional "loophole" as opposed to a violation of the Constitution. Challenging the constitutional validity of something is the right of any branch of the government, but this seems to be going too far.

It's playing fast and loose with the rules, but is more of a violation of spirit than of the letter of the law.

Of course, anything that pisses Arlen off can't be all bad...<<

The president can say anything he wants about legislation - now, personally I its tacky to sign a bill at the same time you say its unconstitutional i wish the president wouldn't do that - it means either he is agreeing to violate theconstitution or that he is going to violate the law he is signing - that sends a bad message either way.

But the Presidnet can say what he wants and issue non-binding addendums and there isn't anything congress can do about that.

They can do something about the Executive branch violating the laws the presidents signs but that's another issue.

[Watery Tart]

[Huck]

I'm not saying what is going on here rises to the level of Calhounism, but the contention is that the president's statements offer legal opinions that perhaps--perhaps--are dodgy attempts to nullify or discount certain portions of the bill. Let's not be naiive. It's conceivable that an administration's "legal opinion" could bend the truth a bit. It's a power play between the Congress and the executive. Could be just more liberal harping, or it could be the president is trying to have his way. It happens. Remember Iran/Contra? That was an administration subverting Congress to have its way. It happens.

[conservative blonde]

Even though GWB hasn't vetoed any bills evidently he has put caveats on many which is driving liberals and RINOs hackles up. So I have to give him some credit for doing that. Part of the President's job is to keep the opposition party off balance. I think the campaign finance thing is going to be straightened out by the SC. No President is perfect and I think Bush is pretty good by comparison to many others we have had. I think he has played fair in letting the American people know where he stands on issues. As God used King David, although he was marred, God can and is using Bush.

[pgyanke]

Quite correct. I have abused the already much abused term of co-equal. What I meant was simply that each has their functions in which they are the authority and one branch can't compel the other to not do their Constitutional duty.

In the context of this article and the sample statement given, the President is simply stating that Congress can make laws against torture 'til they're blue in the face but until amended otherwise, he is the Commander in Chief and the one charged with defense of the nation... and he will use the means necessary to ensure success in his role.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"I'm not saying what is going on here rises to the level of Calhounism, but the contention is that the president's statements offer legal opinions that perhaps--perhaps--are dodgy attempts to nullify or discount certain portions of the bill. Let's not be naiive. It's conceivable that an administration's "legal opinion" could bend the truth a bit. It's a power play between the Congress and the executive. Could be just more liberal harping, or it could be the president is trying to have his way. It happens. Remember Iran/Contra? That was an administration subverting Congress to have its way. It happens."

I think you forgot to add one other possibility. The President could be making these signing statements because he really believes that part of the bill could be found unconstitutional.

[pollyannaish]

Fair enough. I am judging only on results, not process. Ok, so my pollyanna angle would be that he was helpful...even if unintentionally so. See? LOL. (I'm just funnin' with you.)

If it makes any difference, Specter is NOT my Senator. If he was, I would have voted against him. As it is, I am working to replace Cantwell with a GOP 'cause it's all I can do to help.

[Badray]

I see, but without understanding the process (and without knowing Arlen) Arlen gets credit for something that he, in fact tried to derail.

Arlen is for Arlen. If it benefits Arlen, he is for it. If it seems that it doesn't benefit him and he is for it anyway, look again.

Using that as a guide, you can be pollannaish AND right about Arlen. ;-)

[pollyannaish]

Fair enough. I'm really trying to live by the old RWR 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

So my official comment is:







And that about does it. ; ).

[Badray]

Ah, but Arlen is a Republican in name only. There is nothing about him otherwise that is Republican.

[pollyannaish]

No doubt there. so in that case....


He has a nice name?




ROFL. You are giving me a real run for my money Bad. I'm going to have to turn in my "What would RWR do?" bracelet in about three seconds.

[ladyinred]

The Magic Bullet liar strikes again.

[LibertarianInExile]

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

The real problem with these qualifying statements is that the President SIGNS the unConstitutional bills instead of vetoing them, then qualifies his signature, saying he won't enforce certain aspects as the Congress expects. If Clinton had done this we'd be up in arms. I don't know whether to hate Spectre for bringing it up now or not, I'm so used to hating the jackass, even though I think it's probably a good thing this weaselly Executive b.s. gets stopped (just like Executive Agreements and Executive Orders oughta be).

[LibertarianInExile]

"This is what is really irking Specter and the rest of those in congress that believes its power "trumps" the executive in almost every aspect, IMO."

It should. The problem is it shouldn't be passing unConstitutional laws, and the President shouldn't be signing them at all.

Spectre's a douchebag, but he's not all wrong on this.