Back during the Administration of Richard Nixon (Remember him? He was in all the papers.), the President refused to spend certain funds that had been authorized by Congress, because he disagreed with the purpose. He claimed Executive authority to do that.
Assorted folks filed suit, and in due course the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was right and the President was wrong, and the funds had to be spent as designated. But when you apply that thinking to "signing statements," the logic falls apart.
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.
And if it is possible to file suit to force a politician to stop expressing his opinion, most of the Senate Democrats and an occasional so-called Republican like Spector, deserve that treatment long before President Bush does.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
We can root for President Bush, and trash the POS from Pa. all we want. I personally despise Spectre, but just imagine a President Clinton -- either one of them -- using signing statements to this extent. We would all be screaming bloody murder, and calling for their heads.
The elites in the senate have always struggled with the executive for power; probably always will, given their arrogance. However, right is right, and there is a reason for the veto provision. The president should use the veto for legislation he doesn't agree with, and take his chances on congressional overrides.
Couple of points. First, I know nothing about signing statements but if the signing statements are just opinions (like an IRS opinion letter?), does it shield individuals from liability under the law if they follow the signing statement opinion? Or does it partially shield a defendant by negating intent to break the law? Taxpayers can still be liable for taxes, if not penalties, if they rely on IRS opinion letters so I am assuming parties down the line from presidential statements can theoretically be hailed into court for violating the law even if they were following the signing statement. In that case, I see no reason why the Senate should have the right to sue the president anymore than it should have the right to sue the IRS for its opinions.
Second, is this the same senate (and house) that frequently exempts itself from the more onerous laws it imposes on others? Should I be able to sue to get the feds to live with the same social security benefits they will on non-civil employees, or the same anti-discrimination laws? What's good for the goose applies to the gander? (I won't hold my breath.)
I don't often disagree with you, CB, but I do here. Bush is clearly stating that he has no intention of adhering to elements of a law that he has just signed when he issues the signing statements. He has a recourse under the Constitution - to veto the bill in question. It would be one thing if Bush actually had vetoed any bills, or was dealing with a bill that has been overridden. But he has shown no sign that he has exhausted the normal Constitutional recourses to objectionable legislation that he believes intrudes on his Constitutionally-enumeratd powers.
And one other thing - if he is going to make a defense of the Constitution over his enumerated powers, he also needs to adhere to the limits the Consitution places on his office and on the larger federal government. That has not happened.