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.
And I bet they would do it again.
Wadda ya know, a mole........LOL!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Agreed. Can't believe Bush backed this lame horse.
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.
I'd have to guess that the alternative (next step) is to veto them,
and that's OK with me as well.
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
W brought this on himself and on us. He needs to take a bow.
If Specter isn't careful, he is going to cost Santorum the election.
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.
Mark Levin had one line on this on his blog. It says:
It's time for the Republican caucus to give him the hook.
Thanks Just!
Specter is so weak and impotent, his efforts are hardly worth a thread on FR.
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.
Manditory Congresional retirement age of 60.
There's so many Constitutional Issues that would arise from a bill like this that it couldn't pass the smell test.
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.
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.