Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge (Specter)

Boston Glob ^ | 6/28/06

[mrsmith]

Constitutionally, it means the Executive Branch would have no authority to administer the laws until after the Judicial Branch gave them direction in how to do so.

I suppose Specter would pass a law to let him sue the courts for mis-interpreting laws if they didn't give the "correct" direction.

[Mo1]

How about a class action suit against Specter by the american people

We didn't elect this clown to be the President

[Peach]

#1. He's a POS.

#2. He's disloyal. It is through the president's efforts that he got re-elected.

#3. It will never fly.

#4. Tony Snow mentioned something about this yesterday and gave the number of signing documents that Clinton vs. Bush had. I don't remember the numbers, but I recall that it was a similar number.

Maybe some freeper can come up with the number of signing documents Clinton had vs. what Bush has had.

#5. I'm assuming Specter didn't have a problem when Clinton did this which is extremely hypocritical.

[Huck]

Like I care what the media "wants me to think." It comes down to presidential power vs legislative power:

It has been the national-security related statements that have caused the most controversy. Last year, after months of difficult negotiations, Bush withdrew a veto threat and signed a defense-policy bill that included a provision by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., explicitly banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers. But Bush's signing statement reserved the right to waive the torture ban if he concluded that some harsh interrogation techniques could advance the war on terrorism.

Does the Constitution permit a president to waive portions of laws he doesn't care to execute? Seems to me to be a fair question.

[Peach]

Short answer: Yes.

Tony Snow talked about this yesterday. See my post above.

[mcvey]

It is a lot more complicated than that. I have never been comfortable with signing statements and doubt that they have an official status.

The judiciary decides what laws mean.

If Bush wanted to sign a law different than the one presented, he should have vetoed.

We conservatives who back original intent should not allow a president to bypass original intent through signing statements.

McVey

[rwa265]

"first veto?"

No, President Bush will sign it, and include a signing statement saying the law does not give Congress standing to sue in cases where the president uses the signing statement to bypass any statute that conflicts with the Constitution. :-)

[Libertina]

I actually wish President Bush would veto bad laws. That stops them instead of just letting tehm sit there on the books waiting for a left leaning Prez to come in and start enforcing some piece.

That being said, Spectre is a rat disruptor.

[SE Mom]

LOL- did it again..pinged before reading thread;)

Between this and the Europeans now calling for investigations into SWIFT...my blood is boiling.

[IrishMike]

But we can't say anything against RINOs! Because that would just be mean-spirited and not nice. /sarc.



I believe at least two Rino's voted with the DRats yesterday, when by just a single vote, the Senate didn't protect the flag.

[Huck]

Interesting, but really of no consequence. Jefferson wasn't even a member of the Constitutional Convention. And of all the American founders, none was more flippant in writing that Jefferson. Even Madison sought to draw a distinction between his Virginia Resolutions and Jefferson's Kentucky resolutions. Jefferson was, to put it in modern terms, outside the mainstream, even in his day.

It really is THE question though. Who decides? We've had nullification problems before, because all possible means seem to invite chaos. Can the president nullify a law he thinks is unconstitutional? Then how about states? Jefferson felt they could as well. So how to operate as a Union if some states recognize a law other states nullify? Or if a president nullifies a law that all states recognize? etc. Seems to me America has settled on the SCOTUS being the final arbiter, Jefferson's admonition notwithstanding. Seems to me we fought a war over a lot of these issues as well.

[Peach]

I'm not thrilled about the Euroweenies either, SE Mom.

And no trouble about the double ping; we all get pinged to threads multiple times. LOL

[hipaatwo]

How about a class action suit against Specter by the american people


We need to do it from Pa but I'm IN!

[cvq3842]

I would be curious what exactly the signing statement said. I would not be surprised if it said something like "I am signing this with the understanding that Congress did not intent to limit the President's constitutional authority as Commander-In-Chief to . . . " that would preserve, and flag, the issue.

Just a guess. I really will try to research it more.

[mrsmith]

"Like I care what the media "wants me to think." "

You quoted the "media" instead of the actual statement.

Which doesn't contain what your source claims.

The statement: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

And people say the liberal media is losing influence...

[Buckeye McFrog]

Mr. President...

DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR PAT TOOMEY!
(despite your pleas to the contrary!!!)

[Mo1]

We need to do it from Pa but I'm IN!

I'm not sure .. though Specter is from PA

This bs bogus lawsuit affects the country as a whole

I say we all sue the idiot

[mrsmith]

"I would be curious what exactly the signing statement said."

Good Freeper!

President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863,

[Huck]

Ok, so parse this for me why don't you?

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

That's the section in question. .

[rwa265]

"#4. Tony Snow mentioned something about this yesterday and gave the number of signing documents that Clinton vs. Bush had. I don't remember the numbers, but I recall that it was a similar number.

"Maybe some freeper can come up with the number of signing documents Clinton had vs. what Bush has had."

From yesterday's Press Briefing: "But, for instance, during the course of the Clinton administration, there were 110 signing statements -- I'm sorry, 105 signing statements, 110 at this point in the Bush administration."

More on the discussion from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060627-3.html

Q What will the Senate find when it completes its detailed look at the President's use of the signing statement?

MR. SNOW: I think what they're going to find is that the President has done the same thing that his predecessors have. As a matter of fact -- let me see, just give me a moment here -- I want to get the first name correct. Michelle Boardman, who is Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel -- I'd direct you to her testimony today before Senator Specter's committee, because she really does lay out not only the history of the use of these signing statements, usually to make points of constitutional interest, or constitutional import, but also to draw parallels with previous presidencies and the extreme similarity, for instance, between signing statements and the justifications and the circumstances under which the signing statements were issued between, say, Presidents Clinton and Bush when it came to things like national security and the presentment clause, and so on.

So I think what they're going to find is this is really sort of business as usual, and that the volume of signing statements is really not that all out of line compared with previous administrations. Somehow people are now taking more notice. I mean, some people have been writing stories about it, but if you go back and you scratch at the surface, you'll find out that presidents generally had the same concerns about defending the presidential prerogatives when it comes to national security.

Or to give you another example, sometimes there are reporting requirements getting back to Congress, seeming to get approval in the process of executing a law that, in the opinion of this and previous administrations, violates the 1983 Chadha Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which talked about so-called legislative veto. I mentioned that in passing this morning in the briefing.

So what you end up doing is finding different ways to meet the sort of desires of Congress, but doing it in a constitutional way. For instance, what you do rather than having a formal reporting to Congress, you have consultations that aren't formal, and therefore members of Congress stay in the loop. In some ways, you have changed the law. The President has done it in the following way. He has tried to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as he is bound by the Constitution. But he also is enjoined by the Constitution dutifully to carry out the laws and to execute the laws of the United States.

So those -- what the signing statements are designed to do is to make sure that both of those duties are kept in balance, and that the President is, in fact, faithfully executing the laws.

Q This morning you acknowledged this President has used it more, I think you just said, not way out of line --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because I have been reading some of these stories, and I guess what I ended up doing is going back and reading Michelle's statement. And I'll give you just some of the data she has. I will also give you the caveat, because I think sometimes it depends on how you count these things. But, for instance, during the course of the Clinton administration, there were 110 signing statements -- I'm sorry, 105 signing statements, 110 at this point in the Bush administration. We may be comparing apples and oranges, which is why I want to issue the caveat, but it is also the case -- and again, I'll just refer you back to this testimony. If you need a copy, I'll be happy to email it to you. You can go through that.

Q Last thing on that. I'm confused on how he used them. Does he use them just to make constitutional points, or is he directing interpretation of the law?

MR. SNOW: Well, in some -- no, what you're -- you're making constitutional points about how you execute -- how you can execute the law in keeping with the Constitution. I've got to say, some of the signing statements are -- this is a really great law, I'm really happy about it. I mean, some of the signing statements are also, in effect, "atta boys." But when it comes to constitutional statements, they do generally fall into a series of categories. And you will forgive me if I go back to Michelle's testimony. But she talks about not only national security concerns, but specific constitutional provisions -- the most common being the recommendations clauses, the presentment clauses, and the appointment clauses -- and also, to interpret specific holdings of the Supreme Court like the Chadha decision, which I just referred to before, with regard to the use of the legislative veto. So that's how he uses them.

Q One other quick follow. When he makes these points, are these things he lost on and didn't get the Congress to do --

MR. SNOW: No, no --

Q -- things he forgot to mention --

MR. SNOW: There will be -- no, there will be times when Congress may, in fact, have done things that it hadn't considered. And also Presidents -- you go back and you can read some of the things Walter Dellinger wrote when he was working for President Clinton because he faced the same problem and actually wrote fairly extensively about it, and said, you are not under an obligation every time you see one of these constitutional concerns to veto a bill. Sometimes, what you can do is to make your expressed concern known within the context of a signing statement and find ways to work with Congress, which sometimes will, unknowingly, have gotten itself into this sort of situation.

And therefore, you can solve it that way. This way, you don't have -- you don't veto a bill, you don't create the kind of animosity or tension that you might normally have in the context of a veto, over something that is relatively minor and can be solved with a combination of a signing statement and cooperation with Congress to fulfill the will of Congress, and at the same time, abide by the constitutional injunctions that apply to the President.

Q It's not the same thing as a line-item veto?

MR. SNOW: No, absolutely not.