Specter prepping bill to sue Bush

[E-Nice]

Specter prepping bill to sue Bush By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 45 minutes ago



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.

[PETA]

Specter = idiot RINO


but, please, let him bring forth his bullshit so it can be addressed head on - if he's correct - then burn GW at the stake - - if not - - burn Specter.


Take that offer to Pennsylvania and await response.

[junglist bastid]

hahaha good luck with that one buddy!

[E-Nice]

Originally Posted by xian

Specter = idiot RINO


but, please, let him bring forth his bullshit so it can be addressed head on - if he's correct - then burn GW at the stake - - if not - - burn Specter.

why condemn before you know if he's correct?

what is meant by RINO?

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by E-Nice

what is meant by RINO?

I think: Republican In Name Only

[E-Nice]

ahh. thanks.

Maybe spector is the only voice of conservative reason left in a party that is continuosly getting further from its core values.

and of course chuck hagel.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by E-Nice

ahh. thanks.

Maybe spector is the only voice of conservative reason left in a party that is continuosly getting further from its core values.

and of course chuck hagel.

To me it's either A)Bush hit a very sensitive issue for Specter which is why he's hammering away at Bush on this or B)Specter's posturing for election time. Due to his health issues I'm doubtful of B.

[E-Nice]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

To me it's either A)Bush hit a very sensitive issue for Specter which is why he's hammering away at Bush on this or B)Specter's posturing for election time. Due to his health issues I'm doubtful of B.

By sensitive issue do you mean following the laws of the constitution and not trailblazing uncharted executive/facist territory??

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by E-Nice

By sensitive issue do you mean following the laws of the constitution and not trailblazing uncharted executive/facist territory??

Isn't Specter the head of the Intelligence Committee? Maybe he feels like Bush overstepped his bounds and is freezing Congress out and he's trying to get back at Bush. That's just speculation on my part, but I could see that happening. AFAIK Specter hasn't been nearly this vocal about any other issue against Dubya in the past.

[Adam D]

I would sincerely hope the courts would be unwilling to grant authority to signing statements, but I suspect they would probably rule that branches of the government have no constitutional authority to sue one another.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by E-Nice

ahh. thanks.

Maybe spector is the only voice of conservative reason left in a party that is continuosly getting further from its core values.

and of course chuck hagel.

One can call Specter many things. Conservative is not amongst them.


Anyway, like I said, let Specter make his challenge head on and in the bright light of day and let us see who is right and who is wrong. Then we get to burn the wrong one at the stake. I'd be happy watching either toasted on a spit.

Originally Posted by Adam D

but I suspect they would probably rule that branches of the government have no constitutional authority to sue one another.

which is why this may be no more than political posturing...

however, I think the Senate can bring a challenge in the courts to get a ruling but for the life of me can't really think how thjey'd have to go about doing it.

Simply "suing" the President is, as you note, prolly not gonna work