http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14020234/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14020234/

Props to Senator Specter. 

And I must say that it may be a sign that you are doing something wrong when people in your own political party are getting ready to sue you for the way you do your job.

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.

High Voltage wrote: my thoughts exactly. are the statements tacked on to the legislation? if so that would make them part of the law, correct? judicial review time at that point.

I don't think so, on both counts.

The President can't modify legislation before signing it - that's pretty clear.  No line-item veto on the Federal level.

These statements are not tacked on to or made part of the legislation - they are a separate statement that essentially goes like this: "That law I just signed?  Yeah, well, I'm going to throw it in a drawer and pretend it never existed."

It has the same practical effect as a veto, but it circumvents the whole process.

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.

This has absolutely no effect on my life at all...   given the extremity of current events, I find this whole issue trivial and its pursuit to be a waste of time.

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. 

I agree that you disagree!! 

This is an issue that has been in practice for how many years?   And suddenly now there is a reason to champion the cause for separation of powers?  

Signing statements are not a part of the law... they are reservations to be able to review the sub-effects of the law.   As was mentioned in the article, most of Bush's statements are in regard to National Security or a suspected "unconstitutional" portion or result of the Law.  

I think you would have to agree that with the influx of terrorism in latter years that many new Laws enacted may have hidden issues that are detrimental to National Security.   Many Laws are being pushed through quickly as "Band-Aids" and they may be found to be Unconstitutional after the fact.   When these difficulties surface then there is record of the President's concerns and the Law can be reviewed for correction or replacement.   At no point is the law rejected or authorization given for the law to be ignored carte blanche by the President.

Again, these are just what amount to side notes or a Presidential "CYA" if you will.   These are not Legislative additions, exceptions nor detractions.  The Law is enacted in full as supplied by both Congressional bodies until such time as review is necessary.

I will say, that with all the "big" things to argue about... it is refreshing to debate over something relatively small!

This practice certainly has been in effect for decades.  But as you point out, it is not random that the issue has come to a head at this point.

While it would be nice if the government took the time to clarify details regarding the separation of powers during "calmer" times (if such times ever existed), it is inevitable that these issues only get attention when there is a perception of abuse.  Bush has been more aggressive than his predecessors (rightly or wrongly) with the use of these letters, and has used them specifically in issues that are likely to raise hackles.

As a result, this is the perfect time to address this issue - because right now people care.  When we go back to a President that uses these letters only occasionally, and only regarding things that nobody cares about, this will once again fade into the background.

Testing this issue during those calmer times would be an interesting theoretical exercise - right now we get to test the issue during crisis (of sorts), which is the best time to test any issue.

Practically every "War on Terror issue" that has come before the courts has related to some policy or issue that has been around for decades but never got any attention before now.  In my mind, this case is much like the Padilla case - something we could have handled during calmer times, except that nobody cares during calmer times.

Will this distract from more pressing issues?  Probably, but frankly I don't see Congress working too hard anyway, and this is important.

In my mind this is exactly the correct time to figure this thing out.

Clinton did issue lots of executive orders (although I don't know if he did more or fewer than other presidents), but EOs are a bit different than what is going on here.

An Executive Order doesn't go through Congress, true - but Congress can override it, and an EO cannot override Congress.  More to the point, however, executive orders are typically policy statements, not really law.  The old "no assassination" policy, for instance, was an executive order, but since the President controls the military anyway, he can pretty much decide not to assassinate without even doing an EO.

These statements, on the other hand, directly override Congress, which EOs (TMK) do not do.  They are essentially a veto without a veto.

Interesting comparison, but I do not think they are the same.  More importantly, there is established law and process for executive orders - these statement letters have neither, as far as I know.

That certainly is the way I took it.  Comparing with Clinton is generally a valid exercise - he was the prior President, and he was in the White House for 8 years.

But, like I said, while it is an interesting comparison, I don't think they are the same, simply because they do different things.  But one could certainly disagree.

.Ryan wrote: ..Barr Association...

Roseanne's new charity???

.Ryan, 1st off, I don't believe we have a "failing" President.   The tone of the Presidency was set 9/11/2001.   I find it appalling how many people forget that.   God forbid if Algore was in office, we would all have learned to sing KumBaYa in Arabic while holding hands on a camel hair blanket while he apologizes to the radical Muslim world for us "infidels" still having a head attached to our neck.   But back on topic...

Signing Statements are NOT a side-step of Congress, and your comment of "one man overriding congress" is completely inaccurate and an example of non-informed sensationalism.    

The President has ALWAYS done this, as I said, this is a footnote, a side note, a margin entry, etc... that acts as a check mark for future growth.   It in no way takes away from the Law until such time as the Law is shown to have an adverse effect or Constitutional irregularity.   At that time, the Law can be reviewed by the Judicial System and the Legislative bodies.   However, through this time of review... the Law still stays in effect.

As for the amount of Statements written, I believe this is based on several issues:

1.  There are "knee jerk" and "band aid" laws that are being written due to the periods of crisis we are experiencing.   The Nature if these Laws and the speed at which they are pushed through demand that there be a statement added for un-foreseen complications. 

2.  There sheer volume of Laws that are making there way up the Hill.   As time progresses and life gets more technologically and socially complicated, there are more and more issues that must be addressed.   Much of it is important, however;  I don't think there is any disagreement that much amounts to the desire by your Congress-person to exude a perception that they are doing SOMETHING to keep your vote.

As Clark pointed out, the comparison to the EO is extremely interesting kudos to shub for bringing that up!   I disagree with Clark that it may not be a valid comparison.   This is another tradition/right of the Presidency that in my mind, has more potential to blur the lines of separation.   An EO doesn't only "over-ride" Congress, it goes around Congress completely... I don't want to get into a Bush/Clinton debate though.   So I will just point out that there are many such tools that are available to a President.   Bush's tool of choice is the Signing Statement, Clinton's was the EO... I think if either one of them exercised balance in the use of statements vs. EO there would have been much less controversy for both Presidents.

* Edited to remove signature

Well, Pravda has spoken out on the issue:  http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/28-06-2006/82644-bush_abuse-0 - http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/28-06-2006/82644-bus h_abuse-0

That pretty much settles it.  Pravda, by definition, can never be wrong.

TEHGANGSTER wrote: ...all the supreme court justices are in bush's pocket anyway...

That's a pretty bold and unfounded statement...

(Not to mention completely and obviously incorrect)