Replies

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.

It sound like what Bush is doing is using this tradition in lieu of a line item veto.

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.

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?).