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 ...
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.
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?
What a dick.
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?
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...
That piece of...
he needs to join Murtha and go jump off a flooded PA bridge
now, now..... play nice :-)
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.
Can someone explain what this means? Thanks.
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.
#38 is not necessarily correct.
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.
That piece of.
steaming excrement
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.
I highly doubt that any other succeeding president will be bound by a "signing statement" from a previous president.
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.