I got a couple of emails yesterday asking why I hadn’t mentioned Sen. Arlen [tag]Specter[/tag]’s latest vow to introduce legislation letting Congress [tag]sue[/tag] [tag]Bush[/tag] over “[tag]signing statements[/tag].” I didn’t because I was confident one of two things would happen — either Specter would back down (or accept some absurd “compromise”) or Specter’s [tag]Republican[/tag] colleagues would put the kibosh on the proposal.
As it turns out, it was the latter that came true first.
[O]pposition from other Republicans means that Arlen Specter will have a difficult time making legislative headway in his latest move to counter executive powers assumed by the Bush White House.
But conservatives on Specter’s own panel quickly lined up behind Bush on the issue. “I don’t see what the problem is,” said John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a member of the panel who also chairs the Republican Study Committee, said signing statements are a valuable tool for the White House to use to clarify legislation.
Specter’s proposal would “transfer the power to the [tag]courts[/tag], and throws the courts directly between the Congress and the president,” Sessions said.
Cornyn’s sycophancy is just embarrassing, but Session’s argument actually has a kernel of truth. It would put the courts in a position to intervene in a conflict between Congress and the [tag]White House[/tag].
Except, in this case, that’s almost certainly what’s needed.
We’re dealing with a situation in which lawmakers are passing bills, the president is signing them into law, and a signing statement tells Congress which parts of the law the president is going to ignore. Bush could do what other [tag]president[/tag]s have done with legislation that is not to their liking — that would be a [tag]veto[/tag] — but this president is “special.”
It sets up an awkward conflict. Congress is following the legal process, while Bush believes he can sign, alter, and ignore any law he chooses. In response, lawmakers could stand up for themselves and start denying funding to administration programs relating to the laws the president chooses to ignore, or they can go to court and challenge the White House’s signing statements. Those in Congress who have the audacity to question Bush’s practice don’t have the votes to exercise the power of the purse, so they’re considering litigation. Of course, as it turns out, they don’t have the votes for that, either.
If there’s any good news here, it’s that Republicans might go Specter’s bill — as long as Bush is exempted.
[F]ormer Rep. Mickey Edwards, R-Okla. (1977-93), who was a member of the ABA task force, said Republican leaders are unlikely to move Specter’s bill unless its effective date is delayed until at least 2009.
“Otherwise,” Edwards said, “people will say this is a way to embarrass the president.”
Yes, we’ll have to stop this nefarious practice … just as soon as Bush is finished trashing the place.