Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge (Specter)

Boston Glob ^ | 6/28/06

[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.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

When is the cancer going to finish eating his brain?

Dude, c'mon...we're better than that.

[Jameison]

"President Bush is not saying, as President Nixon did say, that he will not follow a law duly passed by Congress. President Bush is only expressing his opinion about the law."

Exactly.
When did the President of these United States, stop having first amendment rights like anyone else, to express hos virews about some law?

Sphincter is getting more power drunk by the minute.
And this buffoon has the gall to accuse the President of over stepping his powers?

[redgolum]

So glad Bush supported Spector last election.

[michigander]

Can the president nullify a law he thinks is unconstitutional?

That's not what is happening with these "signing statements".
But, within his term of office, he can choose not to execute a law or grant a pardon to anyone convicted of breaking a law (other than impeachment).

[newcthem]

Yes he is...........and he was backed by Jorge instead of letting a real republican run for the seat.

[mrsmith]

I see just what it says. Which I would "parse" as "will administer under the Constitution".
That's how presidents are supposed to administer laws in America- constitutionally. If they're in error as to how that is done then the aggrieved seek redress in courts, and legislatures change laws or impeach.

You got eyes, surely you don't see any claim to "the right to waive the torture ban if he concluded that some harsh interrogation techniques could advance the war on terrorism. "

[new yorker 77]

You must hate Reagan as well.

Reagan campaigned for him in 1980 and 1986.

[hipaatwo]

Between this and SWIFT I can't even think straight I'm so damn mad.

[Jameison]

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

Rubbish.
Exactly how does President Bush "bypass" any law, when he makes signing statements?
The bill becomes law AFTER he's signed it doesn't it?
And after its been signed into law, the President has faithfully followed that law hasn't he?
Exactly what is the problem here again?
This is hubris of the highest order from the arrogant buffoon Sphincter.

[Graymatter]

As a PA citizen I'd like to sue Specter for misgovernment, malfeasance and miscarriage of justice. For starters. He should be disbarred, dismissed, and heavily betarred with a fine feathery coating for his final ride home from DC.

[mcvey]

Rubbish? Really?

I can only imagine what we would now be saying if this was Clinton who was doing this.

[Sonny M]

That's the issue right there. The president does not have constitutional authority to strike down parts of a law. He can veto or sign. That's it.

Its not used as a line item veto, its used in reference to how the bill is carried out, thats the intent.

However, by voicing concerns in a signing statement, and bringing up questions (as he is allowed to do), someone can sue to overturn the bill and cite the signing statements as part of their case...and its perfectly constitutional.

[Sonny M]

I am not sure this is constitutional, it sounds traditional. In fact, with regards to budget bills, congress forbids the executive branch from NOT spending money- this goes back to Nixon- the President would not spend all the budget dollars to balance the budget.

It sound like what Bush is doing is using this tradition in lieu of a line item veto. As soon as he hammers the line item veto out with congress, he will probably stop this practice.

To me, it looks like he isn't using it as a line item veto, and even if he wanted to, it wouldn't work.

The purpose of the singning statement is in how the law or bill shall be carried out and executed.

The signing statement will never stop, ever. Before Nixon lost the right (via legislative means, not judicial ones) to embargo funds, he and every executive before him used signing statements.

I don't think we need (though I would like) a line item veto, we just need to reform the budget acts from '73 (or was it '74?).

[mrsmith]

Of course, after some injury was claimed then the statement could be part of the case. Perhaps that is what you meant.

I don't see how there could be an issue for the courts merely on the basis of the statement. That would be advisory, there has to be an injured party for a case.

[Ryde]

Actually the president has to take care to faithfully execute the laws.

As Jackson and Lincoln both pointed out a president must execute laws that they believe to be harmful or foolish or both. The executive branch can be required by the courts to do so.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was just over such things. There is, after all, no difference between failing to do what you have been directed to do and refusing to obey a law legally.

[MBB1984]

Bush is getting what he deserves. He supported Spector against a solid conservative. If not for Bush, Spector likely would have been beaten. If you sleep with snakes, you will be bitten. DUH!

[pollyannaish]

How about this:

Specter did a great job of helping us get Alito and Roberts confirmed.

This proposal is idiotic and will go nowhere.

See. Credit where credit is due. Disagreement where disagreement is due.

Learning not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Priceless. ; ).

[TheCrusader]

"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."

So Bush has found a way of supplanting his Constitutional VETO power, (remember that thing?), by proliferating the so-called "signing statements". What a weenie, liberal-hugging way to protest bad legislation. The fact that he hasn't vetoed a single bill that the tax-and-spend Congress has put on his desk is enough to tell any conservative that Bush is a pretender, a RINO.

[cvq3842]

Thanks!

[Sonny M]

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.

They do have official status, the nature of the job requires it. The purpose of the signing statement is not as a form of line item veto (though from Washington to Nixon, executives were able to embargo funds, and some used the signing statement to do so, a legislative act during watergate ended that), but the purpose has to do with how the executive carries out the bill or law and what he believes the bill means and says it means and how it is to be administered.

Ironically, the signing statement could be made moot without a single change in law.....simply make each bill more specific and narrower with less wiggle room and include how its supposed to be carried out...good luck there.

Bush (and to just as far an extent Reagan) used the signing statements in creative ways, but all above law.

Washington started the practise, and it has been used by all except for one president, just not in the large numbers its being used now, and ironically, Bush isn't even using it as large in scope as previous executives did.

However, as chief executive, it would be impossible, with current legislation, to never use the signing statement, unless congress gets smarter with its bill.

The signing statement is simple, congress makes the laws, the signing statement says how the president intends to carry it out, or in some cases, if he even can carry it out, or if he has concerns about the ability to carry it out.