posted July 29, 2006 01:16 PM            

WASHINGTON, July 25, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against a tactic by President Bush to avoid carrying out parts of laws he signs said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week to allow Congress to sue Mr. Bush in federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will ... authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of 'signing statements' with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said on the Senate floor.

Specter's announcement came the day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duties to sign a bill, veto it or take no action.

Mr. 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 nonveto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he said, "is harming the separation of powers."

Specter's committee came up with the 750 figure for the number of statutes passed by Congress and signed with reservations by Mr. Bush. The ABA estimated Mr. Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all previous presidents combined.

Signing statements have been used by presidents typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

Many of Mr. Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security. The implication is that he would not be bound to execute those parts of the law.

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," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "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 that challenged provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal legislation, which Specter wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture against detainees.

Mr. Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, a former judge who like Bush is a Texas Republican, 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.

posted July 29, 2006 01:27 PM            

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter introduced a bill this week that would allow Congress to sue President Bush over his outrageous use of "signing statements" to exempt his administration from following the laws he signs.

Bush has attached statements to an estimated 800 bills -- more than all presidents in U.S. history combined. They include laws banning the torture of detainees, protecting government whistle blowers and preserving civil liberties.

Kentucky senators should support Specter's legislation, which would ultimately allow federal courts to clarify the lines between congressional and executive authority.

"The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute, nor can the president use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. "This much is clear from our Constitution."

The American Bar Association also criticized the practice this week, insisting that a president should veto a law he does not like rather than attaching statements that usurp the power of the legislature.

Congress has allowed Bush to get out of hand. After the 9/11 tragedies, lawmakers from both parties gave the executive branch too much authority and too little scrutiny.

Specter is no Bush-basher. In fact, his compromise bill asking for a ruling from a secret terrorism court on the Bush domestic-spying program will do little to protect citizens.

But he is one of a handful of powerful Republican lawmakers finally willing to try to stop Bush from running roughshod over democracy.

For example, in a recent congressional hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president personally prohibited the Justice Department from determining the legality of the spying program that collects phone records and other data on Americans.

And Gonzales, the nation's chief law enforcer, went along with that -- as if he was still the president's personal lawyer.

Expansion of presidential power -- often under the guise of protecting Americans from terrorism -- has been the most consistent and persistent goal of this administration.

For instance, the administration is writing legislation authorizing the same military tribunals that the Supreme Court called illegal last month.

Specter's bill is one step in restoring the balance of powers that is the foundation of our democracy.

posted July 29, 2006 01:39 PM              

It's a very important matter that has a lot of people in government, including moderate Republicans, concerned. This time by totally ignoring the other branches of government in the legislative process, Bush has totally ignored the Constitution which established our system of government and the legislative process. Clearly a violation of the Constitution Bush took an oath to uphold as president.

Conyers v. Bush

I wanted to update you on the lawsuit I have filed against George W. Bush and members of his administration, referred to in legal parlance as Conyers v. Bush.

You are likely familiar with a number of steps I have taken to challenge the legality and constitutional grounds of the Administration's actions. From the lead up to Iraq, to the Downing Street Minutes, to the outing of a CIA agent, to warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, I have called loudly for the Bush White House to explain itself.

I decided to file suit against the President in Federal Court in Michigan, along with 11 Senior Democratic Members of Congress. This suit was necessary because of a clear violation of the constitution. When the President signed the Deficit Reduction Act (which "reduced" the deficit by cutting taxes, health care benefits, and student loans), he signed into law a bill that had not passed the House and Senate. A different version of the bill passed each house of Congress with a multi-billion dollar difference in funding for life-saving medical equipment.

Anyone who ever watched Schoolhouse Rock knows this to be a problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXSHMSDrShE&search=schoolhouse%20rock

Given the stakes involved I felt it was imperative to aggressively take this fight to the courts. The President's lawyers tried to get the bill dismissed, but late last week I responded with legal filings that stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution and hope to bring the President, and our United States government, back under the rule of law.

I wanted to email you this news today to update you on our efforts and to thank you for your help and support. Thank you also for your continued dedication to a better democracy.

posted July 29, 2006 02:19 PM            

We've had this discussion before. Congress has continually attempted to seize the Constitutional authority of the Executive branch with legislative acts.

Bush is protecting the Constitutional authority of the Presidency.

If Congress wants a showdown at the Supreme Court, then so be it but I doubt it's going to happen. Congress has a lot to lose and Bush has the Constitution and the facts on his side.

If the RINO...Specter takes this to the Courts, Congress is going to find out what the limits of Congressional oversight are.

posted July 29, 2006 05:55 PM            

Bush is putting Congress on notice that they are overstepping the limits of their Constitutional authority and attempting to encroach on the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch.

posted July 30, 2006 01:49 AM            

You're full of crap. John Dean is a person no one should have any confidence in.

As for your pop psychobabble artist, who could trust a psycho who gives diagnosis with even seeing a client.

Radical leftists are forever attempting to crank up a new issue. And why not, all their old lines of attack failed.

Pull your head out. I don't follow anyone. When they're right, they're right. You're just not bright enough to see it, nor are you bright enough to see what's at the end of the road you want America to travel.

BTW, when are you going to get around to listing the lies you allege Bush told the American people...and what Bush stole...as you lyingly allege...unless you can back up your allegations with some proof and facts.

John Conyers is a horse's ass. God only knows what kind of brain dead morons sent that jerk to Congress.

posted July 30, 2006 01:49 AM              

The Constitution was designed to protect U.S. citizens from the Executive branch having too much power. That was the original inspiration for its existance, hence Congress' existance, etc.

School House Rock 101.

Signing bills without going through Congress?
750 x's???? c'mon.

Why have a Congress??
I mean, really. What's the point of even having a Congress while Bush is in office?

How can this begin to be justified?

jwhop, you seem pretty big on giving the Executive branch all the power they want.
So, if say, perhaps a "Saddam-ish" egomaniac somehow got to be President, than that would be cool with you then? No protection at all for citizens and we're at his mercy?
I don't understand why it's not a good idea for Saddam, yet it's all cool for Bush.
Isn't that a bit contridictive
and yo-yo-ish?

posted July 30, 2006 11:44 AM            

The Constitution is the blueprint for government...the United States government.

It lays out the limitations on the power of the federal government...which include the Legislative, the Executive and Judicial branches. All co-equal but with different powers and duties.

For the last 40 years...at least, Congress has been attempting to enlarge the scope of their authority by slipping requirements into bills which encroach on the Executives Constitutional authority.

The federal courts, including the Supreme Court have all but shredded the Constitution by finding things in there no judge has ever found before and further, by ignoring what the Constitution clearly says.
They seem to be able to see what isn't there but are blind to what clearly is there.

Let the jerk Specter take Bush to court over signing documents. Congress will lose and it's about time Congress was reined in for their constant attacks on the Constitutional authority of the President.

John Conyers is a joke...the jerk who held a mock impeachment of Bush. It was a wonderful affair. All the far left Marxist/communist/socialist radicals showed up and a great time was had by all.

However, that tipped off the rest of America as to just how radical the far left democrats really are.

posted July 30, 2006 02:32 PM              

Our Constitution established the three bodies of government as a checks and balance system to protect the American people from the risk of there ever being a dictatorship established in this country. The three bodies of government are meant to work together, not individually from each other. Bush clearly violated the U.S. Constitution by signing into law a bill that had not been passed by the House or Congress. In doing that he usurped his authority under the Constitution and that upsets the checks and balance system designed to protect the American people and this country from ever having a dictator or one man running the country on his own.

A true American patriot would be very disturbed by this knowing the consequences to our freedom and our democracy. It would not matter to a true American patriot what party the president represented at the time he committed this outrageous act. The country itself and the Constitution would be what truly mattered, not one man and not one political party.

FYI, sociologists are people who study the trends of a whole society, political trends as well as all other trends. They study the thinking and actions of a society in general. They do not see "clients" on a person to person basis. John Dean used the 5 decade study ( 50 years) of sociologists as the basis of his new book, " Conservatives Without Conscience."

John Dean was a White House Consul in the Nixon administration and paid his dues for his part in the cover up of the Watergate break in. That was bad enough for this country but he is no where near being as bad as the crooks and criminals in office now that you whole heartedly support. I would think that his being a Republican would be all the endorsement you need to approve of him but I see it is not the case that just being a Republican matters. What matters is that he be a Neo-Conservative brand of Republican or extremist.

posted July 30, 2006 02:35 PM              

I think you have been listening to Bush too much. He said, "The Constitution is just a god danged peice of paper."

posted July 30, 2006 03:02 PM            

Since you make the allegation, you must know. Or is this just another of your lies about Bush. You could settle this easily by listing the Unconstitutional power Bush has grabbed.

It would be nice if you could first get some credibility by listing the lies you allege Bush told to the American people...and also clear up the matter of your allegation Bush stole from the people.

If it is your position the Constitution is not the blueprint for the American government...setting forth the branches, their powers etc...then what the hell and where the hell is the blueprint?

You sound like a total nut.