Main Forums > The Roundtable

GOP Suing the President???

(1/1)

Werewolf:
Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush


--- Quote ---WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bushs 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 presidents acts declared unconstitutional, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.Mr Bush has added over 750 signing statements to legislation passed by Congress. His reasoning is that the laws are either unconstitutional or disregard laws concerning national security.

In either event if he believes the above why doesn't he just veto the legislation. If it is important enough Congress will override and then the courts can sort it out. They'd have a whole lot less to sort out if the Pres exercised the veto than just letting what he thinks is bad law go through.

So what am I missing here - if the pres feels so strongly about some laws why not just veto them?

The Rabbi:
But this is the same Sen Spector who should have been toast in his last election and was narrowly rescued by a popular president.  I guess it's "what have you done for me lately?"

280plus:
That sounds like something Kerry and Liberman would pull but a member of his own party? Is anybody elses head spinning? Geez...

RevDisk:

--- Quote from: Werewolf ---Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
--- Quote ---WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bushs 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 presidents acts declared unconstitutional, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.Mr Bush has added over 750 signing statements to legislation passed by Congress. His reasoning is that the laws are either unconstitutional or disregard laws concerning national security.

In either event if he believes the above why doesn't he just veto the legislation. If it is important enough Congress will override and then the courts can sort it out. They'd have a whole lot less to sort out if the Pres exercised the veto than just letting what he thinks is bad law go through.

So what am I missing here - if the pres feels so strongly about some laws why not just veto them?I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but where in the Constitution does the President have the right to sign a bill, and then say he doesn't intend to follow the bill if he feels like it.   If a bill is unconstitutional, he is SUPPOSED to veto it.   And as for that "national security trumps the law" bit, that dog don't hunt.  Congress can mandate that issues of national security supercede laws they put on the books, as far as I know.  The President is supposed to execute the law, not interprete it.   Tis what the Courts are there for.   If he disagrees with a law, he has one recourse.  Veto.  And Congress can override it.  If he has questions regarding the validity of a law, tis why we pay the Attorney General the big bucks.

Can the President legally ignore the law on his own whim?

At the moment, there is no legal way to veto signing statements.  (As far as I'm aware.)  If the President vetoes a law, there is a very clear mechanism for overriding said veto.  Technically, there's no formal way of overriding a signing statement.   Specter wants to create a way of checking them.  Basic balance of power on which our country is operated, per the Constitution.  The inherient function of each branch of govt is to check the power of the other branches.  Is Specter's idea the best way to provide checks and balances?  I have no idea.  But it's better than nothing.


Keep in mind, this is the same Specter is trying to pass a bill that'd basically give the President immunity from his possible violations of FISA.   The White House has run very close to "obstruction of justice" in my opinion.    No one outside of the White House and the NSA know if either party violated FISA as they're refusing to allow anyone any substantial information.   This includes Specter himself and even the OPR at the Justice Department.  According to the Attorney General, the President personally decided that Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) should not have the security clearances required to do an investigation.   Which is kinda amusing, because a number of federales got the same clearance granted so that they could investigate leaks of the program.

The Rabbi:

--- Quote from: RevDisk ---
--- Quote from: Werewolf ---Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
--- Quote ---WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bushs 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 presidents acts declared unconstitutional, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.Mr Bush has added over 750 signing statements to legislation passed by Congress. His reasoning is that the laws are either unconstitutional or disregard laws concerning national security.

In either event if he believes the above why doesn't he just veto the legislation. If it is important enough Congress will override and then the courts can sort it out. They'd have a whole lot less to sort out if the Pres exercised the veto than just letting what he thinks is bad law go through.

So what am I missing here - if the pres feels so strongly about some laws why not just veto them?I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but where in the Constitution does the President have the right to sign a bill, and then say he doesn't intend to follow the bill if he feels like it.   If a bill is unconstitutional, he is SUPPOSED to veto it.   And as for that "national security trumps the law" bit, that dog don't hunt.  Congress can mandate that issues of national security supercede laws they put on the books, as far as I know.  The President is supposed to execute the law, not interprete it.   Tis what the Courts are there for.   If he disagrees with a law, he has one recourse.  Veto.  And Congress can override it.  If he has questions regarding the validity of a law, tis why we pay the Attorney General the big bucks.

Can the President legally ignore the law on his own whim?

At the moment, there is no legal way to veto signing statements.  (As far as I'm aware.)  If the President vetoes a law, there is a very clear mechanism for overriding said veto.  Technically, there's no formal way of overriding a signing statement.   Specter wants to create a way of checking them.  Basic balance of power on which our country is operated, per the Constitution.  The inherient function of each branch of govt is to check the power of the other branches.  Is Specter's idea the best way to provide checks and balances?  I have no idea.  But it's better than nothing.


Keep in mind, this is the same Specter is trying to pass a bill that'd basically give the President immunity from his possible violations of FISA.   The White House has run very close to "obstruction of justice" in my opinion.    No one outside of the White House and the NSA know if either party violated FISA as they're refusing to allow anyone any substantial information.   This includes Specter himself and even the OPR at the Justice Department.  According to the Attorney General, the President personally decided that Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) should not have the security clearances required to do an investigation.   Which is kinda amusing, because a number of federales got the same clearance granted so that they could investigate leaks of the program.I agree with part of what you say.

The Constitution makes the executive responsible for carrying out the law.  If he does not do so there isnt a lot that can be done short of impeachment.  Andrew Jackson used this to effect in the "Trail of Tears" incident.  It is not the President's duty to declare laws unconstitutional.  (According to the USC it isnt a supreme court power either, for those into the strict construction argument).  They are not unconstitutional until the USSC says so.

Navigation

[0] Message Index