Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto 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 (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060724/D8J2LC50B.html)
-
I think it's been a common practice among previous presidents.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.
:O
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement) on signing statements - Bush has issued more challenges through signing statements than all other presidents combined.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
That non-veto hamstrings Congress
ROFL
Irony lives.
-
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.
-
Specter always does this? Damn... for a moment I thought the socialists got to him too.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement) 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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement) 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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Because the Bush administration is using the signing statements to interpret the law.
Correct.
-
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.
-
Im waiting for Bush to declare the constitution unconstitutional :rolleyes:
teh bastidge
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
How are they a "de facto line-item veto" if this holds:
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.
It doesn't matter if federal courts consider signing statements if the issue is never brought before a federal court, or it takes years for them to hear it.
And of course it's a de facto line-item veto if the executive can say "I'm only going to follow the part of this law that I like." There is no legal standing say that, but until the courts make that clear (as they hopefully will as a result of this challenge) we're stuck with an executive branch that can say "I don't feel like following the law."
-
Not sure I get it... if the statements have no legal weight then what is all the big deal about?
Oh wait.... it is because they have to be challenged in court? well..... what difference does that make either? Since.... he could write nothing and still interpret laws as he saw fit and no one could do a damn thing till it went to court anyway.
He is gonna interpret it any way he wants.... sighning statements or not.
Line item veto is an entirely different thing and much needed in my opinion....
lazs
-
That's a good point, Lazs; the problem with the signing statements is not that they're being used to declare the executive's intention not to follow the law... the problem is that the executive is not following the law as passed by Congress.
The president can declare that the moon is going to turn blue if he wants, but when he doesn't follow the law there is a serious problem.
-
he could also sign a bill that said the moon was green and not say a thing but act as if it were blue and nothing could be done to him till someone sued him.
He is either acting legaly or he is not. a signing statement is at.... the very least..... a statement of intent. This seems far more honest and moral than the first instance on the moon.
I would of course prefer a line item veto.
lazs
-
I'm afraid of line item vetos unless it goes back to congress for approval.
-
I would think that by definition a veto, be it line item or whole bill, would go back to Congress. They can then fret, fume and do something about it if they want.
-
Originally posted by Nash
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.
Nash is half right. Specter is always pulling stupid bellybutton stunts. However, it is not just the appearence of doing something. The guy is actually a retard.
After this one, Specter's out. And that's a good thing because he's almost as liberal as John McCain.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I would think that by definition a veto, be it line item or whole bill, would go back to Congress. They can then fret, fume and do something about it if they want.
Certainly a vetoed bill is returned to congress where they can rewrite or trash it. No doubt the president will tell them what he doesn't like about it. A line item veto seems to imply to me something different than what we already have and I suspect it means he can pass what he wants in the bill while rejecting the rest. I think that's a bad idea because bills are often the result of compromise. To let the president filter what he wants would undermine the previous process and give him too much power imo.
-
Isnt Specter a person/organization from one of the original James Bond movies intent on taking over the world?
-
Line item veto could be misused, without doubt.
OTOH, it could be used to stop asinine legislation like this:
A bridge to nowhere (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/09/bridges/index.html)
...The 20-mile-long island, home to fewer than 50 people, has no stores, no restaurants and no paved roads. An airport on the island hosts fewer than 10 commercial flights a day.
"I can take off from the homestead and walk the beach for several miles before I get to any other habitation," says Sallee, a fisherman who also operates a small lumber mill. "There's two main mountain ranges on the island and a big valley of forest and muskeg."
Yet due to funds in a new transportation bill, which President Bush is scheduled to sign Wednesday, Sallee and his neighbors may soon receive a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and 80 feet taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. With a $223 million check from the federal government, the bridge will connect Gravina to the bustling Alaskan metropolis of Ketchikan, pop. 8,000....
...Included in the bill's special Alaska projects is $231 million for a bridge that will connect Anchorage to Port MacKenzie, a rural area that has exactly one resident, north of the town of Knik, pop. 22.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Certainly a vetoed bill is returned to congress where they can rewrite or trash it. No doubt the president will tell them what he doesn't like about it. A line item veto seems to imply to me something different than what we already have and I suspect it means he can pass what he wants in the bill while rejecting the rest. I think that's a bad idea because bills are often the result of compromise. To let the president filter what he wants would undermine the previous process and give him too much power imo.
A line item veto would mean that the added trash or pork on a bill that some one in Congress added to the original law could be dropped without having to trash the entire law like the system is now. In practice, more good law could be accomplished and less pork that someone added as a requirement to gain their vote to get the law passed.
-
Originally posted by lukster
but it's kinda like being pregnant. I don't like the process.
ummmm... I've always felt differently about that particular process, at least my contribution to it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ummmm... I've always felt differently about that particular process, at least my contribution to it.
:p
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Nash is half right. Specter is always pulling stupid bellybutton stunts. However, it is not just the appearence of doing something. The guy is actually a retard.
After this one, Specter's out. And that's a good thing because he's almost as liberal as John McCain.
Meanwhile...... no check, no balance.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
A line item veto would mean that the added trash or pork on a bill that some one in Congress added to the original law could be dropped without having to trash the entire law like the system is now. In practice, more good law could be accomplished and less pork that someone added as a requirement to gain their vote to get the law passed.
Exactly. While I think the line-item veto gives the President too much power, I don't see any other way to filter out the crap coming out of Congress.
-
Why does this guy Bill have to do all the work? Can't Specter do his own dirty work?
-
A line item veto could not be missused... it does not take out sentances or words that affect the bill.... It simply takes out all the unrelated pork that is attached to a bill..... or not.
And there is the rub.. a democrat pres would leave in all the welfare state stuff and a republican would leave in his lobyist stuff..
What we really need is a one item per bill law.
not.... Drill in Alaska and... fund the carl marx pre school for every child in the U.S. in five languages. And... build a 400 million dollar bridge over dry land in toad suck ferry ak.
Pick one and vote on that only... then we will know what our representitives are doing... as it is... they can say that they voted for or against only one of the myriad of items on a bill.
It is an honesty and morality loophole for basicaly dishonest and amoral people.... politicians.
lazs
-
congress can over-ride a presidents veto. it needs a two-thirds majority of both houses.
-
Laz,
A line item veto or a one subject per bill limit would both work. Either is a decent concept and then drops it back into Congress' lap to do what they will about it.
Those 2 branches of Govt. don't have to always get along byt they do have to work together. I have no doubt that as long as Congressmen are inclined to put pork and trash into vital legislation they will continue to fight a line item veto.
It would be nice to have something like the hypoctaric oath for Senators and Legislators. You knhow they swear to first do no harm or something like that, but then again we already know how well they keep their word anyhow. :rolleyes:
-
mav.. I agree. A bill should be a one item only deal. As I said... to be able to attach riders to a bill is just a morality and honesty loophole for our scum bag politicians.
They can say that they voted for or against a bill based on one or more of the riders and therfore hide from their agenda.
lazs