Spector needs a copy of the Constitution
According to John Stanton of Roll Call, Arlen Specter is pushing a bill to limit the scope of presidential signing statements;
Frustrated by the Bush administration’s continued use of presidential signing statements to challenge or ignore provisions of Congressionally approved legislation, Senate Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has reintroduced legislation to rein in President Bush’s ability to use the tactic.
Specter, who has long been a critic of Bush’s use of signing statements, quietly introduced his Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 on Friday.
“The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like,†Specter said in a floor statement.
“The Constitution grants the president a specific, narrowly defined role in enacting legislation. … The Constitution provides that when a bill is presented to the president, he may either sign it or veto it with his objections. He may also choose to do nothing, thus rendering a so-called pocket veto. The president, however, cannot veto part of a bill, he cannot veto certain provisions he does not like.â€
So what Specter is saying is that he doesn’t like the way the President interprets the laws Congress writes, so he wants to improve the President’s reading skills by taking the President to court. I guess that won’t slow down government much will it?
But the only thing the Constitution says about the President’s responsiblity to execute Congress’ laws is “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Now that doesn’t sound very “specific or narrowly defined” to me, Senator.
And I don’t think the founders were inclined towards one branch of government using another branch of government to bend the third branch of government to it’s will. I think the good Senator has lost more than his hair.
