Specter wants to pass law agaisnt changing laws

[Ira Aten]

Arlen Specter is proposing a bill to let Congressmen file suit against the President for adding language to bills before signing them, and the American Bar Association has said they want Congress to pass a law to sue Bush for issuing "signing statements" or "adding language in next to his signature when signing a bill" that includes stipulations that he does not have to follow certain parts of the law he just signed into legislation.

Article I, Section VII of the Constitution does not grant such power, and specifically dictates what the President "shall" do if he does not agree with the bill as sent to him by Congress.

He is supposed to return it to "that House in which it shall have originated" with his objections for reconsideration, and another vote. Should two thirds majority approve as is, it shall become law as is without the President's signature. By circumventing that Article, Bush has taken away the right of the People for Congress to represent them in it’s role as a check and balance to the Executive branch of our Representative Republic.

Bush is altering a government document to his own wish, and declaring it law, in a manner not in accordance to the Constitution. Altering a government document with knowledge that it violates the Constitution which he swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" seems to pretty easily qualify as a “high crime or misdemeanor”. Especially if you have sworn an oath to follow the constraints of the Constitution.

Since the Constitution already grants Congress the power to impeach him for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors, it seems superfluous to fool around passing another law allowing an individual Congressman to file suit fro damages and it further erodes the power of the People to insure the checks and balances of our government remain in place. The Constitution dictates what he can or can’t do. You don’t just scribble a note in the margin and say “Gotcha!” and then claim it is Federal law.

Since Senator Spector is both a lawyer and a lawmaker, I have a hard time understanding why he does not realize that an impeachment is a suit which exists now, and is already specifically prescribed in Article II, Section IV, and Article I Section III specifying both the reasons a President, Vice President, or other civil officer of the United States may be impeached, and who shall preside over that impeachment trial for removal from office. It further states that the person impeached can be “removed from office” and further subjected to “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment "according to law".

The Senate has the power to remove him if found guilty in Article I, Section III, a law which Bush did not have the opportunity to “scratch out” or alter, since it was ratified long before he was in office.

So why does Senator Specter feel the need to pass a new law which Bush would simply add an exclusionary clause to (claiming he cannot be sued by Congressmen) when a perfectly good Constitutionally allowed remedy exists already in Article II, Section IV and Article I, Section III to handle the issue?

Below is the story below about Senator Specter:

http://forums.savannahnow.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003468

Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, said yesterday that he is ``seriously considering" filing legislation to give Congress legal standing to sue President Bush over his use of signing statements to reserve the right to bypass laws.

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, made his comments after a Judiciary Committee hearing on signing statements, which are official documents that Bush has used to challenge the constitutionality of more than 750 laws when signing legislation .

Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous presidents combined. But he has never vetoed a bill, depriving Congress of any chance to override his judgment. If Congress had the power to sue Bush, Specter said, the Supreme Court could determine whether the president's objections are valid under the Constitution.

``There is a sense that the president has taken the signing statements far beyond the customary purviews," Specter said at the hearing. He added that ``there's a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes, excluding the provisions he doesn't like. . . . The president has the option under the Constitution to veto or not."

But a lawyer for the administration, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman, testified that Bush has shown Congress respect by using signing statements instead of vetoes when he has concerns about parts of bills.

``Respect for the legislative branch is not shown through [making a] veto," Boardman argued. ``Respect for the legislative branch, when we have a well-crafted bill, the majority of which is constitutional, is shown when the president chooses to construe a particular statement in keeping with the Constitution, as opposed to defeating an entire bill that would serve the nation."

Boardman said the president has the power and responsibility to bypass any statute that conflicts with the Constitution, even in cases ``where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the president has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution."

She also stressed that previous presidents had used signing statements to raise constitutional concerns about provisions in legislation they were signing rather than vetoing the entire bill.

But Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said the administration has used that power ``far more often" than any predecessor. Moreover, Feingold said, Bush ``has done so to advance a view of executive power that, as far as I can tell, has no bounds."

He added that the White House has ``assigned itself the sole responsibility for deciding which laws it will comply with, and in the process has taken upon itself the powers of all three branches of government."

Throughout the hearing, Boardman received little friendly questioning from the dais beyond that of Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, who said he didn't know why Bush's signing statements were ``controversial at all" since other presidents also issued them, including President Clinton, who challenged 140 provisions over eight years.Continued...

 

[LAR-15]

Clinton did the same thing.

 

[Ira Aten]

Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office for doing so.

Just because one President violates his duty, does that set "precedent?"

I think not.

 

[mp510]

The president could still issue executive orders that keep federal agencies from being able to enforce the law (on himself, etc...) if he so desires. I see this as having little value if passed, and I am starting to smell a VETO coming.

 

[LAR-15]

Clinton set the precedent and now every president is going to follow.

 

[Derby FALs]

Clinton did the same thing.

Thanks for the link Bryan P

 

[bowfin]

Why doesn't Specter offer the President a line item veto through Constitutional amendment, like many of the governors have, (43 to be exact) and he wouldn't have to get so riled up.

Of course, that would mean U.S. Senators would have to play straight up with their legislation, and couldn't bury pork and special interest legislation inside other bills and legsilation, things that couldn't stand on their own merits or even survive casual scrutiny.

Presently, any provision can be attached to any bill, even if they aren't remotely related. People like Specter, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Chuck Schumer have made a career out of this tactic, and it has cost America hundreds of billions of dollars.

So in a way Specter and his cohorts have brought it on themselves. Of course, Bush could have supported a real Conservative when Specter ran for reelection last time, one that was close to unseating him, but Bush stumped for the Republican version of Barbara Boxer, so I can't feel too sorry for Bush.

 

[xd9fan]

Bush is no Conservative.....

 

[BryanP]

Clinton set the precedent and now every president is going to follow.

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_signing_statement

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe. Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush has issued over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges.

 

[Ira Aten]

My point is though, the Constitution forbids it. It says EXACTLY what the President is supposed to do if he does not agree with the language.

The Constitution also says what Congress can do if the President fails to follow it's guidelines, and that is impeachment.

Just becasue a procession of fools who don't bother to read the Constitution they swear to uphold ignore it, or simply decide to violate it knowingly, does not mean our Congress should put up with it.

I think the House members should draw up impeachment, and the Senate should consider removal. I bet that would halt the scribbling in of one person's wishes, into federal law.

This is not about Bush, its about the Constitution.

 

[pcf]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2006&Submit=DISPLAY

Here's a link to the O' so scary Signing Statements.

Changes that would happen if Congress could sue the Executive over Signing Statements.....more lawyers would get a cut of our tax dollars.

If this is the best Specter can do to complain about Bush well.......

 

[Ira Aten]

PCF wrote:

"Here's a link to the O' so scary Signing Statements"


PCF: Below is one of the items I cut and pasted here that you pointed out:

"Under the heading "Customs and Border Protection," the Act purports to require the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to relocate its tactical checkpoints in the Tucson, Arizona, sector at least once every 7 days. Decisions on deployment and redeployment of law enforcement officers in the execution of the laws are a part of the executive power vested in the President by Article II of the Constitution. Accordingly, the executive branch shall construe the relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory."


PCF, it is apparant that the bill was intended to change the locations of checkpoints every seven days, in order that illegals weren't absolutely certain what areas to avoid. The President removed the laws intent, and claims total control over law enforcement, with no enforcable input from Congress.

I agree with you, that this practice is VERY SCARY. Especially when you consider what he is doing establishing the "North American Partnership" with Mexico and Canada, for completely disregarding the United States Congress's power to legislate emigration and naturalization laws.

Thank you for helping in making the point.

Now, why doesn't Specter do something about it that Bush couldn't simply cross out, using this method of avoiding his duty to return the bill to the house unsigned?

That is the real question.

 

[ilbob]

Signing statements are a way for the president to put into words how he intends to enforce a law that may be ambiguous or have parts of it that are just plain not constitutional.

There is nothing in the constitution that says congress or any individual congress critter, or any court gets to judge whether the president is faithfully executing the laws of the land.

 

[xd9fan]

My point is though, the Constitution forbids it. It says EXACTLY what the President is supposed to do if he does not agree with the language.

The Constitution also says what Congress can do if the President fails to follow it's guidelines, and that is impeachment.

Just becasue a procession of fools who don't bother to read the Constitution they swear to uphold ignore it, or simply decide to violate it knowingly, does not mean our Congress should put up with it.

I think the House members should draw up impeachment, and the Senate should consider removal. I bet that would halt the scribbling in of one person's wishes, into federal law.

This is not about Bush, its about the Constitution.

+1

 

[Kim]

It is amazing to me that these signing statements have been going on for decades and just now the ACLU, ABA and lefties have their panties in a wad. My question is why now. Has any President ever done what they say in their signing statement. It is just that a statement of the President saying why he thinks a law or part of a law is unconstitutional. He still signed the dang Bill. This is for future consideration if the law is ever taken to court. I think the President and Congress should be able to say what They believe in Constitutional or not. After all they have all sworn to uphold the Constitution. Someone for some reason just at this time has decided to literally make a Federal Case out of something that has gone on since President Monroe. WHY??????????????? Huuummmmmmmmmm.

 

[JohnBT]

www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

1993

"In each of the last three Administrations, the Department of Justice has advised the President that the Constitution provides him with the authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law.(7) This advice is, we believe, consistent with the views of the Framers.(8) Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional." Freytag v. C.I.R., 111 S. Ct. 2631, 2653 (1991) (Scalia, J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).(9)

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.(10) And indeed, in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, supra, the court cited to and relied upon a Presidential signing statement that had declared that a Congressionally-enacted limitation on the President's constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States was without legal force or effect. Id. at * 11."

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

"Under the heading "Customs and Border Protection," the Act purports to require the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to relocate its tactical checkpoints in the Tucson, Arizona, sector at least once every 7 days. Decisions on deployment and redeployment of law enforcement officers in the execution of the laws are a part of the executive power vested in the President by Article II of the Constitution. Accordingly, the executive branch shall construe the relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory."

Actually, on this issue the President has an excellent point. This is a perfect example of separation of powers. Congress may control the budget for the agency and pass laws; but they do not have the power to enforce the laws. That power properly rests with the Executive branch.

PCF, it is apparant that the bill was intended to change the locations of checkpoints every seven days, in order that illegals weren't absolutely certain what areas to avoid.

Under the Congressional interpretation bill, the illegals would have been even more certain what areas to avoid - any area where a checkpoint is removed would now be guaranteed free of checkpoints for the next seven days.

Kind of funny how stupid mandates from people far away from the situation oftens result in poor enforcement at the local level eh? This type of situation is one of the many reasons why separation of powers gives enforcement powers to the Executive and not Legislative branches.

In this case, rather than veto the legislation entirely and hold up the entire bill, the President indicated he did not agree with this particular provision so that the Court, if it ever reviewed the law in that context, would not assume the Executive branch and Legislative branch were acting in agreement.

As far as why Arlen Specter is asking for this, I would speculate he is doing that because he is a Republican and the President wants very much to have these signings challenged before the Supreme Court. Allowing a Republican controlled Congress to challenge his signing statements means the President can selectively bring the Executive/Legislative branch conflicts the Republican partys wants to see addressed direct to the Supreme Court.

My off the cuff opinion as to whether it is Constitutional or not - the practice as used by the President above would appear to be unconstitutional based on the reasoning in Clinton v. New York. It called the line item veto act invalid because it would allow the President to create a different law - one whose text was not voted on in either house of Congress. Since Stevens, Thomas, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Rehnquist all signed on to the opinion - that would seem to make it pretty solid.

 

[foob]

There is nothing in the constitution that says congress or any individual congress critter, or any court gets to judge whether the president is faithfully executing the laws of the land.

What???? Congress is allowed to impeach the president (for basically any reason they can make up), and courts are allowed to rule the executive branch's actions (e.g. interpretations of the law) illegal and unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't just contain the bill of rights (first 10 amendments), there are other stuff too.

All of that is in the constitution, that's what 'checks and balances' mean, the president isn't a dictator (or at least isn't suppose to act like one).

Nobody is above the law, we must send in steven seagal and chuck norris immediately

First there was the incorrect defense "but Clinton did it first", then now the other defense is "the president can do whatever he wants". I don't know how some people can defend him so blindly, as if he was beyond reproach or mistake (i.e. God). This isn't a partisan issue (republicans vs Democrats)...

 

[ilbob]

It is pretty clearly an unconstitutional usurption of presidential power for congress to specify guard shack schedules. I can't imagine a court would uphold such a provision.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Ilbo:
"Signing statements are a way for the president to put into words how he intends to enforce a law that may be ambiguous or have parts of it that are just plain not constitutional.

There is nothing in the constitution that says congress or any individual congress critter, or any court gets to judge whether the president is faithfully executing the laws of the land."


Ilbo:

Article II, Section IV of the United State Constitution says "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR, AND CONVICTION OF, TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."

Article II, Section I, last paragraph specifies the President will swear or affirm that he will "preserve" the Constitution of the United States. When he violates his oath of office by simply writing an edict, and declaring it law, he is 1. Committing perjury by his oath to return the bill to the House in which the bill originated

2. Commiting fraud by signing into law, something that ONLY the President wanted, but did not get a majority vote in the Senate.

So it seems that since there IS a Constitutional plan as to what the President's legal functions are specifically on this issue, and the Articles repeatedly address what Congress CAN do if a President "commits treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors", then the only question remaining is does the same Congress that feels he is overstepping his Constitutional powers, (and claims he should be sued because of it) also believe a President is bound by the oath or affirmation to fulfill his duties according to the Constitution.

I personally think swearing an oath to uphold something, and then turning around and doing something totally outside of my authority while sneakily writing law unilaterally, easily qualifies as a high crime.

It clearly says if he "does not agree" he is to return it, not scratch out portions, and add in portions he thinks up on his own, and then declare it law. That, is dictatorship, not "clarification".




So it seems pretty simple to

 

[ilbob]

There is nothing in the constitution that says congress or any individual congress critter, or any court gets to judge whether the president is faithfully executing the laws of the land.

What???? Congress is allowed to impeach the president, and courts are allowed to rule the executive branch's actions illegal and unconstitutional.

Where is there ANY constitutional authority for the judicial branch to determine whether any act passed by congress is constitutional or not? What article is it in?

Congress can certainly impeach a president. And I would argue that congress can determine for itself whether the actions for which he would be impeached reach the very high standard set in the constitution. I think very few would agree that ignoring a dictate regarding guard shack scheduling rises to such a level.

 

[foob]

ilbob wrote:

Where is there ANY constitutional authority for the judicial branch to determine whether any act passed by congress is constitutional or not? What article is it in?

Firstly, I mentioned the executive branch, not the legislative branch. I said "courts are allowed to rule the executive branch's actions illegal and unconstitutional."

But anyway to answer your question, because the judiciary has the final say over the constitutionality of all laws and the application of these laws:

Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

I thought this was obvious. If congress tomorrow passes a law that says all guns are banned, obviously the courts will hear (when someone gets arrested or sues) and have the final judgement on whether the law is illegal (unconstitutional) because it conflicts with the 2nd amendment.


Misc: What's "guard shack scheduling" you keep bringing up? I've read all the news articles regarding signing statements and can find nothing relevant that mentions "guard shack scheduling". The phrase doesn't even exist on Google, are you making stuff up? (Your search - "guard shack schedule" - did not match any documents.)

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote form IlBob"

"It is pretty clearly an unconstitutional usurption of presidential power for congress to specify guard shack schedules. I can't imagine a court would uphold such a provision."


Ilbox. Nothing in that statement had anything to do with "schedules" and you have misrepresented the signing statement' by claiming it dealt with "guardshack schedules".

If you go back and read it, the issue deals with the LOCATION OF U.S. Border Patrol check point locations.

The reason congress wanted them moved, is so the illegal aliens breaking our emigration laws (which Congress has the POWER Constitutionally to oversee) would not know specifically each and every day, which areas to avoid. It required the U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoint stations to be relocated every seven days (before Bush disallowed it by his changing the law without doing what he was supposed to do, and return it or veto it.)

So to claim it wqas a "guardshack schedule" is more than misleading.

 

[JohnBT]

"Nothing in that statement had anything to do with "schedules""

Well requiring them to move the checkpoints every 7 days sounds like a schedule to me. Or are we going to redefine words as well as the meaning of the Constitution?

John

 

[bowfin]

/*PCF, it is apparant that the bill was intended to change the locations of checkpoints every seven days, in order that illegals weren't absolutely certain what areas to avoid. */

LOL!

If they have to move every seven days, then you might not know where they WILL be, but you certainly will know where they WON'T be on the eighth day. If you are an illegal, that is $64 question anyhow.

I wonder who wrote that little piece of strategy into the bill, Vincente Fox!?