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.
What can you expect from a Judiciary Committee full of lawyers???
LOL
Pinz
Hey speculum, Bush will sign the bill with a signing statement voiding it you idiot!
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.
Even worse, he could be getting more guilty people off as as a criminal defense attorney. He was the attorney who got Ira Einhorn out on bail. Einhorn fled the US to France and it was almost two decades before he was extradited.
I'm generally opposed to throwing a Republican under the bus but Specter is one that I would make an exception for.
That sucker better not. That is all I have to say, he just better not.
How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is, to have a thankless child
Thanks Willie Shakes.
This will turn into a constitutional crisis.
Executive powers verses Legislative powers. Decided by Judaical powers. Bush will lose.
With asshats like Specter who needs an opposition party?
This won't go very far. Specter will just bask in the publicity of this bill and then let it die, probably. Publicity is what he thrives on more than results.
I see the Arabs in Michigan are suing the Bush Administration for the way Americans weren't rescued in Lebenon. It's amazing they haven't sued over Katrina and the lack of rescue there!!!
This litiguous bullying is nonsensical in that it's going far too far!!! It needs to be stopped and this poor excuse for a Republican Senator needs to be made an example of right away!!!
We the People elected George Bush to prosecute this war on terror and our Representatives voted almost unanimously to have him prosecute the war on Saddam Heusein! We don't need the courts to supervise and hogtie everything!!!
Crap! Can't we just send ol spectator to Beirut?
Impeach Specter!!!!!
NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm a liberal and I think these signing statements are great. Since President Bush set the precedent, democratic Presidents will be able to use them too.
First of all, President Clinton used constitutional signing statements more than the Reagan administration, by 105 to 71. DonÂ’t take my word for it — check out this 2003 study by Professor Chris Kelly of Miami University (see text accompanying note 88). Also, WaPoÂ’s report today said this about presidential signing statements: “The courts have yet to give them much weight….�?
Arlen would be washing dishes if it weren't for Gerald Ford and Earl Warren.
If this doesn't teach George to dance wit duh wun dat brung ya, nuttin will.
If the court can dictate the action of another branch, doesn't that mean that the Judicial is the superior branch of the three? What does that say about "separation of powers" and the concept of equal branches of government?
When wil this "little cock-a-rocha" be stomped on?
Did you read the article? President Bush is using them in a different way than past presidents.
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.