Author Topic: Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush  (Read 908 times)

Offline xrtoronto

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« on: July 25, 2006, 11:39:53 AM »
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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, 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.

c&p

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2006, 11:41:19 AM »
I think it's been a common practice among previous presidents.

Offline xrtoronto

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
Re: Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2006, 11:56:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by xrtoronto
The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.


:O

Offline Tarmac

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3988
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2006, 12:02:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lukster
I think it's been a common practice among previous presidents.


Yes, but not to the point Bush has taken it.  IIRC he has issued more than all previous presidents combined.  

I'd be happy to see the SC side with Congress on this one and preserve some cehcks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.  I'm surprised signing statements haven't been shot down before now, as they're basically a de facto line-item veto.  

ed:  Wiki on signing statements - Bush has issued more challenges through signing statements than all other presidents combined.

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
Re: Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2006, 12:14:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by xrtoronto
That non-veto hamstrings Congress


ROFL
Irony lives.
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2006, 12:21:21 PM »
Specter is always doing stuff like this. By the time something happens (if it happens) it's altered so much as to be completely different, or else it doesn't get out of committee.... or something else which apeases the very thing he says he's trying to go after. It's just the appearance of doing something.

He talks checks and balances, but doesn't check and doesn't balance. So I'll believe it when I see it.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2006, 12:35:22 PM »
Specter always does this? Damn... for a moment I thought the socialists got to him too.
sand

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2006, 12:41:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tarmac
Yes, but not to the point Bush has taken it.  IIRC he has issued more than all previous presidents combined.  

I'd be happy to see the SC side with Congress on this one and preserve some cehcks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.  I'm surprised signing statements haven't been shot down before now, as they're basically a de facto line-item veto.  

ed:  Wiki on signing statements - Bush has issued more challenges through signing statements than all other presidents combined.


I agree that Bush has done it more but it's kinda like being pregnant. I don't like the process. I think presidents should stop and just veto the damn bill if they don't like it.

Offline Mickey1992

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2006, 12:46:11 PM »
"For example, in signing a bill last year banning the use of torture by American personnel, the president wrote that the executive branch would "construe" the legislation "in a manner consistent" with the president's powers and "the constitutional limitations on the judicial power". In other words the president would not enforce the law if it conflicted with his authority as commander-in-chief to pursue his "war on terror" as he saw fit."

2008 can't come soon enough.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2006, 12:48:04 PM »
Line item veto would likely eliminate the reason for signing statements and then Congress can get on with either overiding it, present a better bill or just live with the veto.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline CavemanJ

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2006, 12:50:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tarmac
Yes, but not to the point Bush has taken it.  IIRC he has issued more than all previous presidents combined.  

I'd be happy to see the SC side with Congress on this one and preserve some cehcks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.  I'm surprised signing statements haven't been shot down before now, as they're basically a de facto line-item veto.  

ed:  Wiki on signing statements - Bush has issued more challenges through signing statements than all other presidents combined.


How are they a "de facto line-item veto" if this holds:
Quote
Sen. John Cornyn, 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.

Offline Mickey1992

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2006, 12:53:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by CavemanJ
How are they a "de facto line-item veto" if this holds:


Because the Bush administration is using the signing statements to interpret the law.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2006, 12:58:34 PM »
He can interpret all he wants. It doesn't have any weight unless there is a point of law behind it like a court decision.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2006, 12:58:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Because the Bush administration is using the signing statements to interpret the law.


Correct.
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Mickey1992

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2006, 01:19:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
He can interpret all he wants. It doesn't have any weight unless there is a point of law behind it like a court decision.


It has all the wieght of the world until someone (Congress) sues him in court to stop doing it.