 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 6, 2007 at 06:35:40
Senator Specter Fights for Constitution by Joel S. Hirschhorn Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
Specter had the honesty to call President Bush's abuse of signing statements an "unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority." "The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," said Specter.
"Presidential signing statements can render the legislative process a virtual nullity, making it completely unpredictable how certain laws will be enforced. This legislation reinforces the system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution," said Specter.
Commenting on the legislative process, Specter noted: "This is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the president that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers." Subversion of our Constitution – pissing on it: that's what Bush has gotten away with. Bush-the-ruler has made a mockery of our sacred rule of law.
This bill would prevent the president from issuing a signing statement that alters a statute's meaning by "instructing federal and state courts not to rely on presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute."
This is Specter's second attempt at preventing Bush and any future president from disrespecting the Constitution. His similar bill in 2006 went nowhere. But he had some support. Senator Patrick Leahy said: "I have long objected to this President's broad use of signing statements to try to rewrite the laws crafted and passed by the Congress, because I firmly believe that this practice poses a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances. ... These signing statements are a diabolical device and the President will continue to use and abuse them, if Congress lets him."
From a historical perspective, Specter noted that "while signing statements have been commonplace since our country's founding, we must make sure that they are not being used in an unconstitutional manner; a manner that seeks to rewrite legislation, and exercise line item vetoes." An unconstitutional manner is exactly what Bush is guilty of.
In 2006 the Congressional Research Service came up with these summary statistics on constitutional objections in signing statements: Reagan 26 percent, Bush I 68 percent, Clinton 27 percent, and George W. Bush the winner at 86 percent. But the way the current president has used signing statements to nullify laws is unique.
Many people have said that Bush's use of signing statements allows him and federal agencies to blatantly ignore provisions of laws and congressional intent. The Government Accountability Office found in mid-June that in several cases the administration did not execute laws as Congress intended when Bush attached a signing statement to them. GAO found that the statements have the effect of nullifying the law in question in about 30 percent of cases. In July 2006, a bipartisan task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." And still Congress has not acted to stop this behavior!
The New York Times in 2006 editorialized about Bush's use of signing statements: And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts. Indeed, what Bush has done (and gotten away with) is unprecedented in American history.
Let's be clear. There is no constitutional provision, federal statute, or common-law principle that explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. But two constitutional provisions are pertinent. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. And many aspects of Bush's signing statements amount to line item vetoes. The Supreme Court has held that line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the Court said a president must veto an entire law. And Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Thus, the Bush style of signing statement has no constitutional support.
Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, when a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."
Here is another dimension to Bush's scummy behavior: ''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," noted Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor who studies executive power. Phillip Cooper, a leading expert on signing statements, has called Bush's signing statements "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational." Legal scholar Lawrence Tribe wrote that what is objectionable is "the president's failure to face the political music by issuing a veto and subjecting that veto to the possibility of an override in Congress."
Famed attorney John W. Dean has added yet another reason to question Bush's behavior: "The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling. Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): 'It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. See United States v. Morrison ('Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt.').'" But Bush puts himself above the Constitution, Supreme Court and the law.
Will Specter's second attempt succeed in a Democrat controlled Congress? And if so, will Bush sign it into law – without using a signing statement to refute its meaning and intent? Though it should be a no-brainer for every American that respects our Constitution, I bet that neither Congress nor Bush will come through and quickly make Specter's bill law of the land.
If it does not become law, common sense says it should be considered as a possible constitutional amendment. In fact, it is a perfect illustration of why more politically engaged Americans should support the national campaign to obtain the nation's first Article V convention for proposing amendments. When good and necessary laws cannot be obtained through the normal but untrustworthy legislative process, then lawmaking through constitutional amendments is absolutely necessary and appropriate. Our Framers knew what they doing when they created the Article V convention option. Learn more about it at www.foavc.org.
www.delusionaldemocracy.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 13 comments |
|
WELL, SAID
WELL, SAID, well, done and a welcome Bill, JSH. Odd that it came from a Republican, but even more welcome display that someone in that party has GOT it finally, now if only the Dems, could GET IT! by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 8:20:50 AM  (0+)
|
|
a problem that can't be solved with legislation
Much as I appreciate Joel's recognition of this problem - and Sen Specter's attempt to address it - I cannot be optimistic about their proposed solution. There are no "signing statements" in the Constitution. These statements have no force of law, but they are taken as guidelines by an administration intent on subverting the will of Congress and defying the Constitution as well. These signing statements are already illegal. The way that Bush and his administration are undermining the law of the US is blatantly illegal. I would judge that "high crimes and misdemeanors" isn't too strong a term. So what difference will it make to pass one more law, if so many previous laws are being ignored. And what happens if the law passes Congress, and is signed by Bush, along with a signing statement that says the law doesn't apply to him? Congress is faced with a President who usurps power and subverts the laws that they pass. So they pass another law? This is weak and pusillanimous behavior. If they really want the Administration's lawless practices to stop, they can hold hearings, talk to the press, build a case for impeachment. Passing one more law is unlikely to affect the Administration's wantonness. by Josh Mitteldorf (27 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 73 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 9:55:51 AM (0+)
|
|
The quote from John Dean has it almost exactly right:
"Bush puts himself above the Constitution, Supreme Court and the law." What Dean left out are the two reasons Bush does so: 1) Bush is far, far below the bulk of the human race, and he knows it. 2) Reminding himself of the certainty that he's superior to Congress is the one thing he can feel good about. by Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 61 comments) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 11:30:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Specter
The good Senator always seems to cave in at the end, and give in to Bush Don't trust Specter, I would not be surprised that at the 11th hour he kills or eviserates his own bill. I hope not. by Michael Leon (111 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 29 comments) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 12:04:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Omniscient, Invisible Hand of Capitalism
"The good Senator" is all show and no go. I've heard him make similar "independent" statements many time only for him later to punk out. Omniscient, Invisible Hand of Capitalism The most rational argument for progressive taxation is to prevent the rich from becoming so rich that they can corrupt and subvert Democracy. Since that’s already happened, doesn’t it make sense to start taxing the rich at higher rates? Especially since many of the rich, who derive most of their wealth from government contracts, which are paid for by middleclass taxpayers, end up paying lower tax rates than middleclass taxpayers. What with all the loopholes they’ve instigated into law, some government contractors pay zero taxes. We have a government of government contractors, by government contractors, and for government contractors. Not only do they collect a lion’s share of the nation’s annual income, they have devised and implemented a government and tax system that rewards them immensely and disproportionably by paying lower taxes on higher incomes. Essentially, our government and tax system has been so corrupted that corruption has become the government. Everyone knows that power corrupts, but we seem to have forgotten that money first corrupts power. So spare us the fanatical worship of the Omniscient, Invisible Hand of Capitalism, these greedy assholes aren’t Omniscient or Invisible anymore. . by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 4:18:26 PM (0+)
|
|
this will go badly...
Wasn't Spector a big force in the drive to ram through the military commisions act? What will probably happen is that signing statements will be legitimized by this bill and not effect Bush in the slightest. Guys like Spector piss and moan, then give Bush everything he wants and more. by Ben (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 12:12:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Specter was
a junior member of the Warren Commission on the JFK murder but for some strange reason his version of the ' magic bullet' was accepted as the primary one. Neither he was a ballistics expert nor did he have an engineering councel but that version was considered final. It is still disputed. That event catapulted Specter to the political stardom and since that time that Republican(!) is practically always there. In 1968 Jim Garrison, the New Orleans prosecutor tried to reopen the case and failed. It is not clear to me why Specter from time to time behaves like a spoiled child of the GOP but I can assure anyone that Bush and Co. know enough about his career to make him do what they say. Sorry. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4103 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 1:28:08 PM (0+)
|
|
So much pessimism....
I appreciate all of your pessimistic views; like many of you, I am aware that Specter has not earned much support from the vast majority of politically engaged citizens that see Bush as the worst president ever!! Nevertheless, you must admit that this bill if turned into law could make it much more difficult than what Bush faces today. I agree that a terrific case could be made just on the basis of his signing statements for impeaching him for violating the Constitution, but I fear that no impeachment is likely with all the cowardly Dems in power. And remember my last thought in the article: this signing statement situation really does pose an excellent opportunity for a constitutional amendment to absolutely remove any room for evil presidents like Bush to use signing statements to nullify or veto all or part of a law. by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 2:41:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Joel, for such an experienced guy, you are SUCH a sucker
Joel, I am VERY suprised that with your experience on the hill, you don't see Specter's strategy for what it is -- a cynical, vile, and totally pro-Bush plan to keep him from trouble. SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE ALREADY TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If the Democrats in congress had the slightest balls, they would already be in Federal Court challenging 700 of them. (No, they wouldn't win, the courts are stacked against them, all the way up to the pro-Unitary-Executive-by-5-to-4-thanks-Dems-for-not-fillerbustering SCOTUS.) By putting forth a bill to make signing statements ILLEGAL, Specter puts into the public discourse the DEBATE about whether or not they should be MADE illegal, when THEY ALREADY ARE! He promotes the MEME that they MIGHT be legal and need to be made illegal, when, as a lawyer and a constitutional scholor he KNOWS they are NOT. This bill can't possibly override a veto, so it will fail and then it will be established that signing statements MUST be legal, because the bill to make them illegal failed. This is a cynical and ugly strategy, just the kind of manipulative and slimy kind of move that Specter makes. No, Joel, he HASN'T earned any respect. In fact, his track record should make it clear that he doesn't have the American People or the Constitution in mind, just protecting his Party and President from reprecussions for his illegal actions of the last six yers. Are you a shill for the Rethuglicans, Joel, or just missing the obvious? by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 7, 2007 at 12:54:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Actually, you don't quite have it right
Presidential signing statements are NOT illegal; they have been used since the earliest times of our nation. What IS illegal is how Bush has used them: notably to nullify or veto all or parts of a bill he has signed into law. He uses them like executive orders to direct executive branch agencies to NOT obey a law or parts of one. It is a disgrace that no person or group has made a federal case out of his illegal type of signing statements; and I am not so sure that he would prevail in the supreme court. I still maintain that Specter's bill deserves respect and strong support - especially by Democrats. by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 7, 2007 at 1:54:34 PM (0+)
|
|
It is obvious what is needed:
We have to all pull together, forget about all other things as being just distractions and spinning our wheels, and convene a national convetion to pass a People's Resolution to put a bell on the cat. Then we can petition Congress, submitting various designs for bells, asking them to introduce a Bell Bill. Naturally, Congess may need to modify the original proposal --perhaps calling for a bill to fund the crafting of a bell (although things such as they are it may have to be in two parts: one to make a bell, another to make the clapper when funds become available, and then a third to create a joint committee to study how the clapper might be attached to the bell). When that's done Congress can commission a tower to be made so the bell can be hung from it to signify the progress made so far and demonstrate how well our democratic system works, in a grand ceremony. Yes -- let's get to work immediately. by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Friday, Jul 6, 2007 at 4:22:46 PM (0+)
|
|
"Senator Spector Fights For Constitution"
Senator, really needs to start talking and acting on Impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney for all the crimes they have committed. We all know their dirty laundry list, so I will stop here! by Diane_B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 26 comments) on Saturday, Jul 7, 2007 at 5:49:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Once more with feeling
I'll say it again, just so it's clear. SPECTER IS NO FRIEND OF THE CONSTITUTION -- HE IS A TOTAL SUPPORTER OF THE BUSH/CHENEY CRIMINAL CABAL. Make ABSOLUTELY no mistake about this. This bill is a cynical PLOY to provide COVER for Bush/Cheney and their illegal expansive use of the "Signing Statement" that is meant to provide INTERPRETIVE and often CEREMONIAL text to the law, not circumvent it, provide excuse for ignoring it, or pocket veto it. Specter provided similar POLITICAL AND LEGAL COVER for Bush/Cheney with torture, extrodinary rendition, and wiretapping. Specter is a STOOGE and this bill is crap. The ONLY place for the battle on this issue is in the Federal Courts, and when the SCOTUS upholds the signing statements, for impeachment of Supreme Court judges as necessary. That, or on the battlefield of a second American Revolution with bullets. by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 7, 2007 at 7:27:05 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
