Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge (Specter)

Boston Glob ^ | 6/28/06

[Huck]

It sound like what Bush is doing is using this tradition in lieu of a line item veto.

And that appears to me to be unconstitutional. Ppl here can moan all they want that Specter is disloyal. I think he's probably correct on this one. Let's see it go to the SCOTUS. Be interesting to see what they say. Seems to me the president can sign or veto, not alter and amend. This stuff happens from time to time. GWB has a real Jacksonian streak in him, and Specter sticks up for the Senate. This is checks and balances in action. The Bush-should-get-whatever-he-wants crowd be damned.

[Doohickey]

These clowns are going to trigger a Constitutional crisis. First, our President lacks the fortitude to veto a bill and instead issues signing statements.

Then, or weak-kneed Congress wants to fix problem by sic-ing the judicial branch on the executive.

Sheesh. And some of YOU people think this is okay becuase it's President Bush doing it. Is it any wonder that conservatives are sick and tired of the Republican Party?

[toddlintown]

What a dick.

[Just mythoughts]

The Congress can pass any law they can get the majority to vote for, but that law is meaningless until the Congress allocates the dollars for that enforcement and they must be specific in their allocation.

So Spector is a hypocrite in point his accusing finger at the Office of the President. At least the President is putting into writing what he is agreeing to sign.

[Logical me]

And what is the power of "signing statements". Do they change the law passed by the Senate and House or alter it in any way?

[Comstock1]

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...

[AliVeritas]

That piece of...

[Pox]

He can sign a law and use the customary procedure that this article is covering to let it be known to those who passed it that he believe it is unconstitutional and an encroachment upon his "turf".

He is stating that he will not follow it, and is basically telling congress to put up or shut up. If congress wants to make a big deal out of it, it ends up before the Judiciary and then it will be decided once and for all if it is or is not constitutional.

The other method is to veto the bills, but that leaves the door open to a veto override and a plausibly much more difficult case to present in front of the Supreme court, IMO. This seems like the "appropriate" method.

That is why Specter has been cozying up to the Supremes as of late, he's sending feelers for possible confrontations over "turf" according to the consititution, IMO.

[RDTF]

he needs to join Murtha and go jump off a flooded PA bridge

[Lloyd227]

"...which constitution, ours or the hidden Scottish one?"

now, now..... play nice :-)

[11th Commandment]

I agree with you that it sounds unconstitutional. But then I read post #38. I have an idea, why doesn't the congress send an amendment to the States that grants the line item veto. This has been an issue from the very beginning of our Republic.

[Doohickey]

No, Sphincter expects Bush to veto every possibly unconstitutional law he passes. Is that what happens? No. Instead, Bush signs it and excempts his branch of government from it.

[mrsmith]

"A signing statement seems like a quasi-line-item veto. "

So the media would like you to think.

It actually is a public statement of how he intends to administer the law.

Why the media wants to convince you that the president should keep that a secret is beyond me...

Though Dems are more likely to intentionally mis-administer laws, that's a good reason to keep their intentions secret.

[Right_in_Virginia]

...filing legislation to give Congress legal standing to sue President Bush over his use of signing statements to reserve the right to bypass laws.

Can someone explain what this means? Thanks.

[Huck]

Supposedly, GW is using these statements to effectively nullify portions of laws or alter their intent into something more to his liking. It's a classic case of executive vs legislative power, and imo, an appropriate debate.

[Huck]

#38 is not necessarily correct.

[michigander]

Let's see it go to the SCOTUS. Be interesting to see what they say.

Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams,

Monticello, Sep 11, '04.

"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

---

Also, the President could get around any of this by just issuing a pardon to anyone convicted of a section of any law that he feels is unconstitutional.

[hipaatwo]

That piece of.




steaming excrement

[EternalHope]

I don't like the idea of ANY branch of our government having too much power.

Snarlin' Arlin is a jerk, and should never have been backed by President Bush in his last primary. But he might be right about this one.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[michigander]

I highly doubt that any other succeeding president will be bound by a "signing statement" from a previous president.