Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Specter prepping bill to sue Bush - Specter bill would let Congress sue Bush ('signing statements')
AP on Yahoo ^ | 7/24/06 | Laurie Kellman - ap

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; bill; bush; congress; govwatch; judiciary; newmajority; prepping; rino; rmsp; scottishlaw; signingstatements; specter; sue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-153 next last
To: Baynative
Specter would be washing dishes if it weren't for Rove and Bush. THEIR BIGGEST MISTAKE!

And I bet they would do it again.

61 posted on 07/24/2006 6:40:51 PM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: allen185
I'm a liberal

Wadda ya know, a mole........LOL!

62 posted on 07/24/2006 6:44:08 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Global warming has forced me to buy glacier front property in Alaska....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Bush will sign the bill with a signing statement voiding it you idiot!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

63 posted on 07/24/2006 6:45:40 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (404 Page Error Found)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Agreed. Can't believe Bush backed this lame horse.


64 posted on 07/24/2006 6:46:53 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
Trouble is, he is likely the only electable Republican for that seat. Santorum is likely headed for defeat because he has been too conservative for the urban dominated state of PA. If we push Specter out we can be assured that he will be replaced by a Democrat. If we convinced him to act like a real Republican he would almost certainly be out of a job in the next election. That is why I'm always hesitant to see a Republican, even a Rino like him tossed, most are elected because they are only just a tiny bit more conservative than the Dems running against them. PA is a tough one for us because it is highly Unionized and the urban vote is monolithic.
65 posted on 07/24/2006 6:59:11 PM PDT by Uriah_lost (http://www.wingercomics.com/d/20051205.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

We had the chance to get rid of Specter but Bush helped him get re-elected. Now Specter is constantly stabbing him in the back and I'm sorry to say, Bush is reaping a "hard" lesson.


66 posted on 07/24/2006 7:01:47 PM PDT by baiamonte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"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. "

I'd have to guess that the alternative (next step) is to veto them,
and that's OK with me as well.

67 posted on 07/24/2006 7:01:58 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allen185; hipaatwo
President Bush is attaching signing statements that says he doesen't have to. Signing statements of former Presidents have never made that claim.

When someone provides you with material disproving your claims, as hipaatwo did in #35, you may want to take advantage of the free research before continuing to spout off. You may not have been banned otherwise.

I will give you credit though, as a lib you show more respect for our President and the office, than most on this forum.

Now, had you read a little from the link at post 35, you would have found this:

Roosevelt further demanded that the provision be removed and if the Congress did not remove it, he would treat it as a nullity.

Roosevelt had solicited and received advice from the Dean of the Oregon Law School regarding what powers were afforded him during a time of war, particularly what rights did he have to ignore sections of laws he determined interfered with the war effort.

The Dean told him that “if you decide that a certain course of action is essential as a war measure, it supersedes congressional action.”32 The Congress yielded and the section was removed.33

68 posted on 07/24/2006 7:06:51 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

W brought this on himself and on us. He needs to take a bow.


69 posted on 07/24/2006 7:11:06 PM PDT by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

If Specter isn't careful, he is going to cost Santorum the election.


70 posted on 07/24/2006 7:13:36 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost
Bravo Sierra! If 72,125 dead, illegal and repeat voters had voted differently, President Bush would have won PA.

The constant refrain of how a real republican can't get elected here there and everywhere is getting on my nerves. Many have perfected the old commie trick of repeating a lie often enough, it becomes truth.

71 posted on 07/24/2006 7:15:39 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Mark Levin had one line on this on his blog. It says:

It's time for the Republican caucus to give him the hook.


72 posted on 07/24/2006 7:18:37 PM PDT by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Thanks Just!


73 posted on 07/24/2006 7:21:16 PM PDT by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
One thing that I like about the democrat party (even though I don't agree with them on a damn thing) is they usually speak with one voice and they never bad mouth the President if their party is in power.

Now, the republicans, they speak with a 1,000 different voices and probably 50% of them would stab the President in the back if they thought it would put them in good standing with the MSM.
74 posted on 07/24/2006 7:21:32 PM PDT by kempo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Specter is so weak and impotent, his efforts are hardly worth a thread on FR.


75 posted on 07/24/2006 7:22:09 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
And I thought nobody (even then congress or senate) could sue a president while in office. Only criminal charges. Wasn't this true for Clinton?
76 posted on 07/24/2006 7:23:00 PM PDT by ThomasThomas (Red is good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

If Specter isn't careful, he is going to cost Santorum the election.


I have called Santorums office at least twice complaining about Specter and told them to tell him if he campaigns with him he's sure to lose.


77 posted on 07/24/2006 7:26:26 PM PDT by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Manditory Congresional retirement age of 60.


78 posted on 07/24/2006 7:26:28 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Not a part of virtual reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

There's so many Constitutional Issues that would arise from a bill like this that it couldn't pass the smell test.


79 posted on 07/24/2006 7:36:03 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

lol.. at least a few folks are getting a good workout. :-)

I agree, he is a bit beyond belief , and has no one but himself to blame. To see him and Leahy seated side by side as senior members of the senate judiciary is a bit much.


80 posted on 07/24/2006 7:37:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ......Help the "Pendleton 8' and families -- http://www.freerepublic.com/~normsrevenge/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-153 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson