Tuesday, July 25, 2006

A New "Specterism": Congress to Sue Bush Over Signing Statements


Specter prepping bill to sue Bush

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Commentary by FRANK J. RANELLI

"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."
# # #

SANITY CHECK:

As is customary for Specter, just enough "meat on the bones" to keep Bush's faux democratic government appearing to actually care about "checks and balances" and congressional oversight.

If Specter is resolute and serious about reigning in an imperial president gone wild, then why hasn't he signed Feingold’s Censure Resolution, S Res 398?

Although Specter can't initiate impeachment in the Senate, if he was genuine, he would openly call for Bush's impeachment, hold hearings in the Senate and subpoena the entire Bush cabal to testify before the Senate, under oath and then send his findings to the House Judiciary Committee for review and the subsequent formation of articles of impeachment against Bush, et al.

Specter even states that his aim is to have,

"The president's acts [be] declared unconstitutional."

Yet, we have seen this act over and over again. Specter Professes to take a stand against a despotic act by Bush, Specter feigns a bellicose attitude towards Bush’s unconstitutional act (insert favorite transgression here: ___________), Specter dupes the American public into surmising the Senate is doing its job of Constitutional checks and balances on the President’s highly suspect deed, Specter makes backroom deal with Whitehouse to Ex Post Facto Bush’s subversion of democracy into a “grandfathered” in law!

I like ABA president Michael Greco standpoint much better:

”That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement. The practice is harming the separation of powers."

Although I think the word “harming” should be replaced with something a little stronger:

“Destroying”, “laying waste”, “nullifying” or how about “creating a constitutional crisis of epic and grave concern!”

FULL ARTICLE HERE:
Specter prepping bill to sue Bush

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home