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.
That is great news. If you want W to rely on precedence of impeached former president clinton, then he should immediately begin to audit each and every left-wing advocacy group and think tank - but only those affiliated with far-left and even progressive-far-left issues.
Where Nixon only contemplated such behavior, impeached former president clinton perfected it.
Signing statements have been around a lot longer than President Bush.
W is using signing statements in exactly the same way, and the courts are ignoring them, also in exactly the same way. Legally, they are nothing more than opinions or instructions to the executive branch. A court is not bound in any way to pay them any heed.
Nope, just one of many. Immigration is their biggest mistake, but they will not be the ones to suffer from it.
Specter owes his damned seat to Bush and Santorum...what an ungrateful POS.
Okay. That doesn't have anything to do with signing statements, but if President Bush wants to do that, then, fine.
President Bush is using the signing statements in a different way than past presidents.
The President, all Presidents, are suppose to execute the laws passed by congress. President Bush is attaching signing statements that says he doesen't have to. Signing statements of former Presidents have never made that claim. Like I said. I think it's a great idea. I think all Presidents should have more power.
There's only one way to "use them", sparky. They are what they are...opinions with no legal weight.
This is EXACTLY the kind of crap I was talking about.
RINOS OUT!!!
I think that is pretty much what I said.
DeLay's HR 12 and/or Ron Paul's earlier HR 3400 should re-introduced immediately.
Sorry, all, but just can't resist it:
na na na na na na. We Told you, Mr. President you would live to regret supporting this megalomaniac RINO among all RINO's in 04.
Remember, Confucius say: "He who lie down with junk yard dogs, mongrels or other despicable creatures (such as RINO's) get bit over and over again, by fleas."
Well, he might have said it.
This is President Bush's penalty for (a) Supporting that sack of horse feces Specter and (b) not using his veto pen.
If this is true, then President Bush will get what he deserves. He, Karl Rove and the Republican hierarchy supported Spectre over Toomy and Spectre won.
I , personally do not like it but then again I do not care for Spectre.
I suppose that the moral of this ,if it comes into fruitation, is to be careful what you pray for. You just may get it.
Can We The People have a Bill to sue Congress???
Bush is the fool, not Specter. Specter was hung out to dry until the fool in the White House stepped in. Bush wants liberal republicans for Congress? He can suffer the consequences.
Showboating.
It's precedent. If it's good enough for past Presidents, you will be hard pressed to reverse it for this one.
You can't cherry-pick the ones you want.
Specter is the Clown Prince.
If Specter doesn't know what a POS everyone thinks he is, then he needs hundreds of thousands of calls and emails telling him.
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.