Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Spector: Can He Get Bush Into The Courts? Dubious—But It's A Good Idea!
This is an excellent idea.
But, the GOP is so invested in the power they have right now, and so hooked into Bush, they’ll squash any attempt to preserve the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. They’re as hooked into Bush as they were into Nixon—maybe more so because, as I’ve mentioned, they still harbor resentments about the way Nixon was forced out of office. Hell, they’re still pissed about Herbert Hoover losing to FDR. Come to think about it, so many of them are southerners, they’re still pissed about losing the Civil War and LBJ and the Voting Rights Act. “Stabbed in the back,” yes.
If anything happens to force Bush into the courts, it’s going to come from the Democrats, I’m afraid. I’m also afraid they’re too afraid.
This article, by the way, comes from a kind of interesting web site known as "My Way." Worth looking at...
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
Jul 24, 7:20 PM (ET)
By LAURIE KELLMAN
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060724/D8J2LC50B.html
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.
But, the GOP is so invested in the power they have right now, and so hooked into Bush, they’ll squash any attempt to preserve the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. They’re as hooked into Bush as they were into Nixon—maybe more so because, as I’ve mentioned, they still harbor resentments about the way Nixon was forced out of office. Hell, they’re still pissed about Herbert Hoover losing to FDR. Come to think about it, so many of them are southerners, they’re still pissed about losing the Civil War and LBJ and the Voting Rights Act. “Stabbed in the back,” yes.
If anything happens to force Bush into the courts, it’s going to come from the Democrats, I’m afraid. I’m also afraid they’re too afraid.
This article, by the way, comes from a kind of interesting web site known as "My Way." Worth looking at...
Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
Jul 24, 7:20 PM (ET)
By LAURIE KELLMAN
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060724/D8J2LC50B.html
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.
