Pretty Ballsy

That's the point.  Bush hasn't been vetoing the bills.  Instead he signs them into law, and then issues a "statement" that he plans to just ignore the law he just signed.

You can override a veto, but there is no process for overriding a "statement".

Other presidents have done this as well, but it certainly sounds a bit shady.

HV - to my knowledge, the answer to all your questions is "there is no law on the issue".

Congress could pass a law declaring these statements unlawful, and Bush could/would simply ignore it, or issue another statement that he would ignore it.

TMK, there is no law against these statements or any law permitting them.  Complete legal grayzone.  The real issue is what this means for the separation of powers.

I would tend to think that this is exactly the kind of issue that the Supreme Court ought to be deciding.  That's what the Court is for.  This is essentially a powerstruggle between Congress and the Executive, and that same doctrine of separation of powers tells us that the Judiciary is the correct body to resolve that struggle, IMO.

Hairball!!! wrote: Arlen Specter is no Republican

How do you figure that?  The Republican party keeps supporting him for re-election.  That pretty much makes him a Republican by definition.

I'm confused, HV - you are saying that Specter should not sue, and at the same time you are saying that we should have judicial review?

Which is it?  Do you want judicial review or not?

Specter hasn't done anything yet - but the statements he has issued have been a general criticism of the whole "statement" process.  I guess previous Presidents haven't used the process enough to make Specter mad.

And since the current current President is Bush, then the way (or at least A way) to challenge the process is to sue Bush as President.

The lawsuit will essentially alledge that the President is engaging in acts in violation of the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution, and ask for a declaration that these statements are unconstitutional.

But, generally, speaking, the only way to get judicial review of anything is for somebody to sue somebody else.  The Court doesn't have the authority to decide on its own that something is or is not constitutional - somebody has to get sued first.

I would disagree, Rico. 

This is an important issue regarding the separation of powers.  And the separation of powers (checks and balances, and all that good stuff) is arguably the most important feature of our system of government.

Short of a constitutional crisis regarding the freedom of speech, I frankly am hard pressed to think of anything more important to our way of life than the separation of powers.  Granted this sub-issue is fairly specific, but it is nevertheless essential to our government.