Specter prepping bill to sue Bush - Specter bill would let Congress sue Bush ('signing statements')

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.

"And if the Prez had a "question" about somenthing as critical as constitutionality he had no business signing them,"

The president can say anything he wants about any bill he likes, just like any American citizen can.
Let's take the recent, what I consider, unconstitutional ruling by the SCOTUS on Bin Laden's driver, after congress had clearly made a law FORBIDDING the SCOTUS from having ANY jurisdiction involving Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
I, and almost all conservatives have serious problems with that ruling and have said so.
Does that mean the ruling is not going to be carried out?
No.
Time to send Sphincter to the mad house.

True, but the courts do not Ignore the statements. They use them if there is a question on the intent of the law.

For example, during the SCOTUS decision on Hamdan, Justice Scalia wrote that the majority justices used part of the "floor" debate of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to further their case against the law: “With regard to the floor statements, at least the Court shows some semblance of seemly shame, tucking away its reference to them in a half-hearted footnote. Not so for its reliance on the DTA’s drafting history, which is displayed prominently....”

This is why many congressmen make "floor" statements both for and against the bill during debate and after it is passed. They do it for the "record" so that in the future, the courts can use them as a "state of mind" when the bill was passed.

I am looking for some President signing statements that were used by the courts and if I find any, I'll pass them on.

"...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements..."

Specter, the man GWB and Ricky Santorum saved from certain defeat, the man who is charged with the responsibility of shepherding judicial nominees and Supreme Court nominees through the process.....a lawyer.....is apparently oblivious to Supreme Court precedent as elucidated in NIXON v. FITZGERALD, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) God help us all.

"...Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. Pp. 744-758.

(a) Although there is no blanket recognition of absolute immunity for all federal executive officials from liability for civil damages resulting from constitutional violations, certain officials - such as judges and prosecutors - because of the special nature of their responsibilities, require absolute exemption from liability. Cf. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 . Determination of the immunity of particular officials is guided by the Constitution, federal statutes, history, and public policy. Pp. 744-748.

(b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts. Pp. 748-754.

(c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office. Pp. 755-757.

(d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include [457 U.S. 731, 733] a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature. Pp. 757-758. "

The foregoing makes it clear that the President is immune from civil damages for Constitutional violations. I imagine the same separation of powers argument would apply to any attempt to expand or to confer a additional power of judicial review of Presidential acts (An equitable remedy). Seems like Mr. Scottish Law is attempting to amend the Constitution by statute. Swing and a Miss Arlen. Swing and a miss.

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.