Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush

Interesting. I wonder if this is a legitimate stand on his part or more election-year grandstanding to try to preserve his job?

[i]Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jul 24, 9:59 PM

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, 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.[/i]

I don’t think his term is up in 06.

[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t think his term is up in 06.[/quote]

I not sure if his term is up in '06 or not. However, could it be an attempt to help those Republicans that are up for re-election? Or is it a sincere attempt to reign in abuses of power? It just seems that it is rather convenient to do this now as opposed to doing it a while ago. These signing statements have been an issue for a long while.

[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t think his term is up in 06.[/quote]

It is up 2010.

This is just a power struggle between branches of the government.

The executive branch has lost power steadily over the decades and Bush is trying to rip some power back.

The judicial and legislative branch are not giving it up easily.

Tough call to make. Specter is not a party guy…unless he is lobbying for his chairmanship. Then he was a shameless hack.

This may be more about his legacy and his desire to be remembered as a great jurist. He’s in his 70’s and just had a bout with cancer. I don’t see him running again.

My guess is he is doing it for the law rather then just political gain for himself or the Republicans.

I truly hope that he is doing it all for the right reasons and not for grandstanding and partisanship. This country has had more than enough of that and can’t take much more of it.

I don’t think there’s a chance in Hades that the federal courts stick their nose in this fight – they have a lot of doctrines under which they can avoid an issue, and the one that notably springs to mind is “political question.”

That would be assuming, of course, that this bill even passes.

Signing statements are an interesting thing – much like the committee reports that are attached to bills by the House or Senate.

At any rate, I don’t think they’re particularly troublesome in theory, or just because of frequency of use. And I definitely disagree with the ABA, which seems to be arguing for legislative supremacy, when it says the President must abide by laws he thinks are unconstitutional unless and until a federal court rules them unconstitutional. For example, what if Congress attached a rider on a major spending bill, and the rider was a bill of attainder that ordered the president to throw Michael Moore in jail. Would the argument really be that the President would either need to throw Moore in jail or veto the whole bill?