Spector Prepping Bill To Allow CONGRESS TO SUE BUSH In Federal Court

[kpete]

Specter Prepping Bill to Sue Bush
GOP Sen. Specter Preps Bill To Sue Bush...
Jul 24, 7:20 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.

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.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.


more at:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060724/D8J2LC50B.html

[panader0]

I read today about the ABA statement.. In violation of the Constitution

I just hope the repubs can read too......

[serryjw]

1. I just thought...what ever happened to that bill

* signed that was never voted into law by congress?

[babylonsister]

2. Not... Holding... Breath. nt

[panader0]

3. The article I read said thar bush has attached conditions on 750 or 800

bills, while all the other presidents in history combined for 600

[napi21]

5. The ABA said there were 807 as of 7/11/06, but it's a moving

number because he keeps doing them!

[WiseButAngrySara]

4. I was SO glad to read about the A.B.A.'s ruling on the constitutionality

of this! (That is, NOT constitutional, and illegal)

k(pete)nr.

[mikelewis]

6. We already have a law saying Congress can sue the President...

It's called impeachment. What sort of idiocy is Magic Bullet playing at now? The signing statements are clearly unconstitutional based off the SCOTUS ruling in Clinton V. New York that removed the line-item veto from the Presidential war chest. If Bush breaks any of the laws he signed, he can and should be challenged through an impeachment hearing, which will determine if Bush broke the law. Did the Patriot Act somehow remove the legal restraints on the President where he is no longer subject to Impeachment when he breaks the law (even the ones he signed with a caveat)? What is this preposterous chicanery?

[flyarm]

10. if you can catch re-run of cspan2 today of ABA..its worth your time!

they said basically..now i can not quote them..but they said basically that anyone who followed what *hes signing statements was also violating the constitution..and they said it didn't matter who advised the pres..not the vp or anyone working within the white house ..they were violating the constitution and could be held accountable for breaking the law..including congress!

and one of the men there held up the constitution and read a part of it..and told the media that they pretty much had a responsibility to get this info to the american people..and then he read a paragraph..and told the media that they should alos print that section of the constitution for the American people!

it was so powerful..they were basically putting the congress on warning..and anyone who followed what * signed in the signing statements, if they defied US laws sent to * by congress and they instead followed *hes signing statements ..they would be defying constitutional law..

please if you can catch it tonight on a repeat..please make sure to see it..

it was damn powerful!!

fly

[MissWaverly]

15. Thank you Fly

I just looooooove 400 lawyers from the MBA threatening Bushbots enablers in Congress as being
possible accessories to the crime. Wooooo Hooooo! I can't wait to see what lawyer Specter
is going to do on this one. The country is awake, boys, and it's angry.

[Mandate My Ass]

7. Specter was also so outraged by illegal NSA spying on US cititzens

that he sponsored a bill making retroactive illegal spying legal.

FWIW. :shrug:

[jody]

8. * would veto the bill and IMO his veto would not be overridden. n/t

[flyarm]

11. what these lawyers basically were saying..is it doesn't matter what

Spector or anyone else in congress thinks..this goes beyond all politics..they must follow the law..period..and these lawyers will hold anyone accountable who defies the laws..

they stood tall against politics and congress people who would play politics..they were sending a very powerful warning to anyone who defies the constitution or constitutional law..period..

[Marie26]

9. Wow. Go Specter! nt

[ContraBass Black]

12. That should never, ever be necessary.

When the President breaks the law, Congress is supposed to impeach.

[Sydnie]

13. Declare his actions unconstitutional, but don't support Censure

Oh NO! Russ was right and you were wrong Specter. Censure was the first step and you fell flat on your face.


I'll believe that he is drafting legislation when I see it presented and debated. Until then, it will be like the other legislation he "negotiated" concerning the spying ... Specter will find a way to make it all legal and go away if left to his own devices.

[Kahuna]

14. Is this another one of his "for show" bills, that he knows the repukes

will vote down? When will we learn?