Posted on 07/24/2006 5:00:04 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.
"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."
Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.
Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.
But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.
Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law.
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"
Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees.
Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws.
Naww... Bush will sign it into law... and then issue a signing statement.
Can this guy just go away!!
That magic bullet theory was a doozie.
In some ways, I think he has gone away, if ya get my drift.. but we're stuck with him thru 2010 at this point.
I thought signing statements were an integrel part of Scottish law...
From my understanding, Santorum isn't doing well in the polls. I'm not sure if the Pubbies just haven't "come home" yet or if they are planning to sit this one out.
Cheers!
Thanks, I just fire-bombed my keyboard and monitor.
Cheers!
I wish Tom DeLay was still the house whip.
So what? It's still a signing statement.....hell the beltway outta love him for it. It's more paperwork!
The Unicorn Killer
Spector was paid by many wealthy liberals
One familiar with Einhorn was John Kerry's first wife
The run to Europe (like rapist Kelly in Darien, CT) was not a surprise to the defense attorneys
Spectre must do these crazy stunts to get the democrats distracted or something.
Donald Pleasance?
The Senate decides on the removal of a president only AFTER the House impeaches him.
Can we toss him out of the party now and send him back to Scotland? Please.
Do you really expect me to cave, RINO?
No, Mr. Bush. I expect you to die.
Perhaps signing statements are part of Scottish Common Law?
And if the Prez had a "question" about somenthing as critical as constitutionality he had no business signing them
Agreed. W has signed at least one bill into law that he admitted was un-Constitutional (not to mention those he promised to veto but signed anyway). A "statement" is insufficient in such cases.
I'd hope that since he's found his pen, we might expect him to do what the Constitution requires him to do with such trash - send it right back to Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.