[Huck]

allowing for them to be used to strike down parts of a bill.

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.

[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.

[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.

[metalurgist]

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

I heard the President on the radio today asking Congress to pass a new type of line item veto. Could this be Specter's way of getting this issue brought up before the Senate?