Specter wants Congress to sue Bush

Specter's actions appear to be mostly political theater.

According to Senator Cornyn:

"Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a former judge, 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."

 

MP, thanks for posting this. It is very interesting. There are good points on both sides:

(1) In a conflict between the Constitution and a statute, the constitution prevails, including the powers of the President as Commander in Chief, and the President has a duty to interpret such statute as best accords with the Constitution;

and

(2) if a bill is unconstitutional and invades a President's constitutional powers, then the President has a duty to veto it.

I tend to agree with John Yoo's interpretation of the Executive's broad powers related to national security but I certainly don't think those powers are unlimited.

 

If the federal agencies are instructed to ignore a new law it will never get to court unless a suit is brought. Same witha law that is selectively enforced.

For example, in Seattle, City Hall Park is half way between Chinatown (wino hangout) and Pioneer Square (wino hangout) 20 years ago When I was working in that area to keep the bums out of the tourist areas we would tell them to take their wine to City Hall Park and we would leave them in peace to drink their wine. It worked out very well and we laughed to ourselves when the elected officials could never understand why their park was always full of winos.

 

You reap what you sew. They should never have allowed Specter to chair that committee. He's a demoncrat in Republican clothing.

 

Heil Bush

You all want Bush to decide which laws to enforce?

 

bill,

Though I'm still wary with the current make-up of the Court, it would be interesting to see SCOTUS's take on this.