I think Specter may be on the correct side of this one. A signing statement seems like a quasi-line-item veto. This is about the executive vs the legislative, and I think it's and appropriate debate. But yeah, "Specter is a douche" is much simpler and easier an argument.
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.
Um. You may be on the wrong side of this one if you think signing statements are unconstitutional and that Arlen is working within a Constitutional framework.
Whatever happened to actual debate? The type of response I've seen on this thread is sad. And IMHO giving complete support to signing statements will screw the whole country over, if somebody like Hillary becomes president.
Bush came into the Presidency with a personal agenda to assert more Executive power. Probably because Clinton had so tainted the image of the Presidency. Congress is worthless on most every important issue. The Senate is a bunch of stodgy creeps. They are so out-of-touch with the American public that they don't know how to write bills but they do know how to give themselves raises. Bush should veto some of the more errant laws they write. But, Bush is making his own statement his own way. And, good for him. I keep thinking of the nightmare if Kerry had won.
"A signing statement seems like a quasi-line-item veto."
I am not sure what you are saying here. A signing statement does not cause a re-vote in either house, much less both houses.
What a signing statement does is allows the President to offer his legal opinion based on what his advisers tell him.
Do you have any evidence that this has ever been used sucessfully in court to overrule a law, or a portion of a law?
One other question. Is the President not allowed freedom of speech?