Specter introduces bill to ban signing statements.
By on Jul 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Specter introduces bill to ban signing statements.
“Frustrated” by President Bush’s use of presidential signing statements to challenge or ignore provisions of over 1,100 laws, “Senate Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has reintroduced legislation to rein in President Bush’s ability to use the tactic.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What happened to the last bill Specter introduced?
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmTook ya’ this long , huh Specter ?
You believe your complicity in being part of the rubber-stamping , do-nothing 109th Congress , will be forgotten ?
You need more than just this , assbag……
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmWhat happened to the last bill Specter introduced?
Comment by Frank J — July 3, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Jabba the Hastert ate it ……………
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pmThis Congress can’t/won’t do anything to rein in this regime. All they can do is give lip service. (And yes, you can take that several ways.)
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pmassinSpecter’s misdeeds go way back. He’s full of crap, as usual.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pmClinton did it too!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmSpecter’s fixing the barn door after the barn burned down.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmThe Republics in the Senate will keep this vote off the floor, you can guarantee that. And, if not, Dubya would just veto it or attach a signing statement.
There’s no way the Orcs in the White House are giving up any power voluntarily.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmThis is silly for two reasons:
1. Signing statements have no basis in law. Banning them only gives them more legitimacy than they already have. They have no more legal meaning than the doodles he does during security or hurricane briefings. Read the constitution. It’s no where. He must follow the law as written. Period. They are used to give opinion or comment on a law. Thats fine, but that comment can’t be “I won’t follow it.”
2. Spector (my senator) is full of it. He talks a big game, but in the end does nothing. It gets him on the TV though.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pmBush will just issue a signing statement to ignore the Signing Statement bill
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pmif this bill passes it should be retrospect to the day bush took office
If bush can pass torture laws in retrospect
then a simple little red pen Bill in retrospect should be easy
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmYES!!!!! let’s make this happen… Dem or Republicant president – doesn’t manner… take away this undemocratic process…
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmSpecter again..!!! was the camera rolling when he spoke?!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmIt will be a nice movie to make called ‘Mr. Specter and the Decider’
Way to go, Arlen. You allowed the most corrupt sob to ever crap behind two heels to have free gratis for six years but now, when it is obvious that the Democrats will take back the government for a long, long, time, you decide to undo what you had done while you were the committee chairman. Just like a neo-conservative fascist pig.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 pmThe president could still use “shredding statements” or” or “veto statements,” or a combination of the two.
They’re wasting their time if they believe retraction of the “piss-off statements” will make much, if any, difference.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmNow that he’s sure his GOP partners in crime will kill it, he knows it’s safe to reintroduce it. What a hero…
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm#14. VERY well said!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pmsince bush sprung Libby, and every repub knows they’re screwed come next 5 elections….. you better believe the republican scum are going to make it so a dem will never have signing statements.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pmLook, there’s another term you can use for signing statements…
…and that’s public confessions.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:01 pmThis bill pass if there is a signing statement.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 pmSigning statements will be one of the many disturbing aftertastes from this president. It will also be one of the many reasons that the republican party will shrink to new lows in this country.
Their mad dash for a power grab will eventually be their downfall.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:05 pmI’ve yet to see an explanation for that damaging little thing in the Patriot Act that allowed DOJ to seat attorneys without confirmation. Supposedly was Specter’s aide along with someone in the DOJ. Unless I missed an update somewhere. Has Specter ever explained how his chief counsel is able to act independently in such vital legislation?
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 pmSomeone explain to the twit calling himself Frank J, that Specter’s one of his.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pmThis bill pass if there is a signing statement.
Comment by Mr. President — July 3, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
You know, I’m starting to believe this mook is Bush.
He certainly is as illiterate as Dumbya.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmCandyce, I don’t know of any rules barring someone frm adding to the bill, so long as it’s done before the vote. Remember, the Rep leadership under Frist & Hastert did this too, adding bits to bills after they’re released from committee but before a floor vote, and neglected to tell anyone.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pmIt’s a horrible thing to allow.
I have never figured out how these signing statements can be legal.
If a President is clarifying a law, that’s one thing.
What Bush has done in a variety of cases is effectively vetoed a bill without vetoing it.
Examples – Bill on torture. Bush says he’s going to ignore it.
Treaty with India. Congress says he must respect atomic bomb treaties. Bush says he’s going to ignore it.
In both cases, Bush has vetoed the bill, but Congress does not have the option (Constitutional) of over riding his signing statement.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmAnd why the Dems haven’t done anything to take care of this loophole I can only imagine
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmI read a book of law the other day and I decided its total shite and im going to break the law whenever i feel like too
and im going to start with playing football on Sundays instead of practising archery which is capital punishment in the UK or at least till Europe made us sign a treaty saying no offence punishable by death
But its still illegal to play football on a sunday
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmSpecter’s fixing the barn door after the barn burned down.
Comment by Zooey — July 3, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Wrong, Zooey. Until he actually produces something, Specter is just TALKING about fixing the barn door. He’ll probably claim that fixing the barn door is the right thing for America to do, and then when it comes time to vote, he’ll abstain on the whole barn door issue.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pmI am with Commentor #9…. This is an enforcement issue on agencies that do not implement legislation as passed by the Congress. Spectre is always a tool…I can only imagine how a bill, once introduced, where people start whining about need to compromise and blah blah blah…they pass a travesty of a bill that actually provides some legitimacy for signing statements where none ever existed. I can already hear concern troll war-lust Lieberman already whining about how, on national security issues signing statements ought to be recognized as an extension of the President’s role as COC… ugh. Just lock up officials that don’t administer the laws as written. Problem solved.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:54 pmWrong, Zooey. Until he actually produces something, Specter is just TALKING about fixing the barn door. He’ll probably claim that fixing the barn door is the right thing for America to do, and then when it comes time to vote, he’ll abstain on the whole barn door issue.
Comment by spit take
Heh. You’re right.
My bad. :D
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:56 pminteresting that Congress would need to pass a law banning a capability that the POTUS is not granted by the Constitution.
If nothing else, bush has demonstrated that the Constitution is not the all gloriful, all wise, all knowing document that we were led to believe it was. All it takes is one petulant frat-boy to thumb his nose at it and its gone..vanished in thin air.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm.
Sphincter pulled this one out of his…well, sphincter.
He routinely agrees with Bush at the most important part of the legislative process; namely, after the bill makes it through congress.
How do you think that little part of the Patriot Act, allowing warantless wiretapping got in there?
Trolls, your President pissed on our flag yesterday…
Happy Birthday, America!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmWell put Zimzone.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:43 pmMaybe it just occurred to Speculum that the next President, possibly a Democrat, would abuse this power, and since its getting to the end of George’s term, he wants to all of the sudden do something about this.
Naaa, he’s just a moron.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm#32 If nothing else, bush has demonstrated that the Constitution is not the all gloriful, all wise, all knowing document that we were led to believe it was. All it takes is one petulant frat-boy to thumb his nose at it and its gone..vanished in thin air.
It takes a lot more than that. It takes a devout 25% of the population suffering from the Führer-prinzip, a corrupt media wherein crooked financiers pay lickspittles to pooh-pooh any criticism of the frat-boy’s crimes, and a cowed opposition. And, most importantly, the apathy of the 75%.
That last bit is essential. And it looks to me that’s slowly being taken care of. When the apathy turns to rage, the opposition will (slowly, more slowly than we’d like) find its courage, the pundit lickspittles will shift with the prevailing winds, and things will change.
Not fast enough, but they will change.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pmIf you think Presidential signing statements are illegitimate, then challenge them in the SCOTUS. What are you afraid of?
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 pm#37 Jason
I agree. The problem is the SCOTUS is so loaded with Bushites they will rule with Dick Cheney and say that Signing Statements are constitutional.
What we need first is term limits on the Supreme Court. 4-6 years max per jusitce including the Chief Justice. Otherwise we will have likes of Renquist who was a drug-addled psycho sitting on the court for 30 years or the current bunch (Roberts/Alito) who will be there for my entire life and I am only mid-40s.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:11 pmIf you think Presidential signing statements are illegitimate, then challenge them in the SCOTUS. What are you afraid of?
An Authoritarian state ?
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 pmA revolution ?
millions of deaths ?
take your pick .
Enemies foreign and domestic ?
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pmfools ?
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pmthe most serious threat to our constitution in a generation , an out right usurpation of power ,seeking to render the peoples elected representatives mere window dressing ! A Roman senate .
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:44 pmThe American bar assoc said essentially this years ago and it hasn’t even hit the radar screen on CNN ?
This is no longer a partisan issue Arlen ,patriotism never was !
If 30 % of the nations laws were violated by the executive branch than I imagine there are plenty of crimes to begin PROSECUTING !
Prosecute , without quater ,the many crimes against our laws and treaties that are STILL being commited in secret by powers run amok in the federal government !
The alternatives to the functioning of our laws the way they were intended is a nightmare scenario anyway you look at it .
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 pmBeen there done that .
REAL DEMOCRACY NOW !
Accept no substitutes !
This offer PARTICULARLY in effect where prohibited !
Took ya’ this long , huh Specter ?
You believe your complicity in being part of the rubber-stamping , do-nothing 109th Congress , will be forgotten ?
You need more than just this , assbag……
Comment by MCMetal — July 3, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
EXACTLY!!! When is this ghost of a human soul going to just pull over to the side of the road, admit his failures at protecting our great Democracy, and let someone with just one (1) little, teeny, tiny spark of honor, honesty, or intelligence take over?
Hell, I’ll take 2 out of 3 of the above!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:24 pmYeah, after nearly 7 years of unlimited signing statements, let’s be sure that a law is written to prevent the next Democratic president from doing the same.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 pmI would object strongly if a Democrat had done as Bush has done regarding laws and signing statements, but after all this time, all the abuse by Bush, for Specter to propose this now is hollow — he just wants to be sure a Democrat doesn’t have the same loophole.
Where has he been for 7 years? Oh, yes, I know, he’s been on his knees before Bush half the time and for the other half of the time he’s been washing the brown stains off his nose.
This would be an amendment to enforce the Constitution because the government chooses to violate it. So, who would enforce the amendment?
July 4th, 2007 at 9:50 amThe People ?
July 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amMaybe we should give a few billion more dollars to Blackwater ?
July 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amright there outside of DC .
July 4th, 2007 at 11:48 amFor our security .
July 4th, 2007 at 11:49 amHELLO ?
July 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amThe signing statement issue is a clear case of needing a constitutional amendment; it will never be proposed by Congress, and Congress will not pass Specter’s bill. That’s why we need an Article V convention; learn more at http://www.foavc.org, and become a member to restore American democracy.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:33 pm