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....

If you sidestep your duty to do something, doesn't that mean you took no action?

This is sheer idiocy so I guess that I'm not that surprised to see Senatator Specter join the Moonbat Left in this public exercise in futility. Presidential signing statements are the executive branch equivalent of congressmen reading into the record what they THINK the law under discussion SHOULD mean. In other words BOTH are attempts to "spin" future court decisions.

Personally I'd prefer more vetoes and less signing statements, but the idea that they are somehow illegal is beyond idiotic; it is "Specterian". One might as well try to outlaw congressional commentary on the laws they pass, an idea that would probably give Senator Specter a coronary!

I don't get the fuss either.

Bush is simply doing what congress has done for years, providing guidance to future courts on his interpretation of the bill when he signed it. Of course, it assumes that the courst will actually read and take into account the intent of laws passed and signed, instead of making stuff up like they so frequently do.

Actually I'd argue that this is yet another sign that judicial activism has gone to far, and is an attempt by Bush not to control congress, but to rein in the courts. Probably won't work, but nice try anyway.

Ah, our loony RINO from Pennsylvania tries to salve the sting of his recent "victory" defeat over FISA by bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Pardon me whilst I search for a bag to put over my head in shame for being in the same state ...

Why sue Bush? He may have used the signing statement more than other presidents, but he is certainly not the guy who invented them. It would seem that if they are unconsitutional now, they were unconstitutional before. So shouldn't he be sueing the office of the president and not Bush? I mean, is the end result going to be that only Bush is effected.

Arlan is full of it, but he is so full of it he does not realize he is full of it.
Just how far back do signing statments go? all the way to Washington....or only to Madison?
Specter is nothgin if not a self-absorbed twit on so many topics.
As you pointed out, he could be excused if he put a fraction of the effort he has put into looking stupid into actually doing his job.

Even reading about this here, the news, other blogs, the comments...I'm still not getting it.
"There hasn't been even a single case where Bush, relying upon a signing statement, has refused to enforce a law"
This pokes my memory. Does anyone else remember when a Dem Congress sent bills to Pres Nixon? Nixon would decide they had allocated too much money for a given program and put the money into an "impound account". Congress went to court in order to force Pres Nixon to wastefully spend the money. As I recall, they won.

Some history is worth repeating: The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe, but until the 1980s most signing statements were rhetorical or political proclamations. Reagan started the process of constitutional challenge type signing statements. From Reagan to Clinton 247 signing statements were made. Bush has issued over 130 signing statements.

A November 3, 1993 memo from the Clinton Justice Department explained signing statements as follows: Since the President may decline to enforce a law when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may announce to Congress and to the public this fact ahead of time.

So why had Bush had more signing statements? Probably because Congress has issued more laws that collide with clearly established executive powers.

Now an example: Congress may pass a law saying the military can't torture prisoners. While this may be laudable goal, Congress would seem to be clearly infringing on presidential powers as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Bush may veto the law, and then get eviscerated in the press for wanting torture. The alternative, which probably more closely mirrors Bush's real feelings on the issue, is to issue a signing statement. Bush may sign the law, agreeing to apply its provisions, but it is entirely appropriate for him to issue a signing statement saying that he reserves the right to ignore the law, i.e. the president retains his traditional powers under the constitution.

Spectre is of questionable intelligence, and unquestionable arrogance. But then again, a lawsuit might just be useful in more clearly establishing this process in law.

Signing statements remind me in many ways of a pocket veto, which is a process established by the courts rather than the constitution. It actually rests on much firmer constitutional ground than the filibuster, despite what Democrats might say.

Thanks, Big D.

The law used to be that the Federal courts would not give advisory opinions because Art III limited their jurisdiction to "cases and controversies." By that standard, this law, if it were adopted would be unconstitutional, but that was before the constitution consisted of whatever the NYTimes editorial boards thought it did.

If "None of the other blogs I read regularly are talking about this," it means you haven't been a regular reader of Common Sense Political Thought, which you should read, every day! :)

I wrote At least I never voted for him -- and I never will on the 25th, and also published the text of my letter to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania here, the following day. And yes, of course, this is an unashamed pimping of my own site! :)

Ahhh, three hyperlinks: this'll probably get dumped into the moderation queue!

Not every law that is passed is completely unambiguous, and such disputes about what a law means often wind up in court. Courts will, on occasion, try to determine the intent of the legislature via examination of the debate records.

By adding signing statements, the President is providing a record of what he believed the law meant and what his intentions were in signing the legislation. Given that he is a constitutional part of the legislative process, it is perfectly reasonable that the courts could and would also include his intentions in interpretations of the law.

That is really all that signing statements do!

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)