Posted on 05/03/2006 5:03:00 AM PDT by kingattax
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing the White House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.
''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"
Specter said he plans to hold the hearing in June. He said he intends to call administration officials to explain and defend the president's claims of authority, as well to invite constitutional scholars to testify on whether Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his power.
The senator emphasized that his goal is ''to bring some light on the subject." Legal scholars say that, when confronted by a president encroaching on their power, Congress's options are limited. Lawmakers can call for hearings or cut the funds of a targeted program to apply political pressure, or take the more politically charged steps of censure or impeachment.
Specter's announcement followed a report in the Sunday Globe that Bush has quietly asserted the authority to ignore provisions in 750 bills he has signed -- about 1 in 10
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
What is the point of having a Constitution and Bill of Rights, for the same reasons? Which part of 'uninfringed' is not understood? The National Reasonable-regulation Asses dispense our Rights as mere privileges, bought and sold as their stock-in-trade. PHUI Tagline...
I'll bet the senate does not realize just how totally tired the American voter is of hearing this tripe.
Someone needs to tell Arlen that he is not in charge.!!!!!
This is the same Congress that says nothing about the Supreme Court encroaching on its powers. I guess you cannot score political points against judges for life as easily as you can against a sitting President.
Bring Back Orin Hatch!
I haven't heard or seen Orin Hatch lately!
I'll bet Karl Rove's behind this...surveying every bit of Congressional twittery that oversteps into Presidential perogatives granted by the Constitution.
Frankly, there is logic here: if it encroaches, it is not legal. Hence, ignore it.
His last laugh cant come soon enough to suit me.
You are correct though. The president put him where he is and the Republicans gave him the chair of the Judiciary Committee in spite of warniings from the rank and file of the party.
The Globe printed what I presume were the 10 "worst" examples of signing statements offered by GWB.
Each and every one of them appeared to this citizen to be draw a line on the attempted exercise of power by the Congress into Executive Branch activities (e.g., demanding that some executive branch employees report their agency activities to Congressional committees rather than to their own agencies).
That there were 750 signing statements merely illustrates how arrogant and out-of-control the Congress has become, and how entirely forgetful it is of its (and the Executive's) role in the federal government.
Well actually in this article, Specter does decry the Supreme Court encroaching on Congressional authority: ''We're undergoing a tsunami here with the flood coming from the executive branch on one side and the judicial branch on the other," Specter said. ''There may as well soon not be a Congress. . . . And I think that most members don't understand what's happening."
I don't like Specter but he is right on this issue. All legislative authority in our system of republican self-government rests with the people which we exercise through our elected representatives. This authority is what makes our system a republic and not one governed by arbitrary rule or what our founders called a "tyranny."
The incursions against Congressional legislative authority (by the President or by the courts) is a usurpation of the legislative authority of the people and it constitutes an attempt to overturn the central accomplishment of the American revolution -- popular self-government. Under our constitutional system the President may veto a bill he thinks is unconstitutional, he may not ignore it and refuse to enfore it. Presidential executive orders (stroke of the pen, law of the land) present a similar usurpation of the people's legislative authority which I believe are both unconstitutional and inconsistent with self-government.
Dealing with these usurpations of legislative authority is the duty of Congress in order to preserve our republican system. The remedy provided by the constitution in the case of the President is impeachment but dealing with the courts will be less straight forward. I have read proposals that include Congress passing legislation restricting the jurisdiction of the courts to a constitutional amendment that limits supreme court terms to ten years. This is a fundamental issue that "we the people" can not ignore if we want our children to live in a self-governing society.
Kind of amazing hearing this continuous Bullsh*t from these clowns......they don't have any problems with 20 or so million ILLEGAL ALIENS breaking every fricking law on the books, but spend untold amounts of worthless effort considering whether the duly elected President of the United States (who is an legal citizen) may have. UFB!
President Bush is not the only one who can ignore unconstitutional statutes. You and I also can. In fact, we are virtually obligated to ignore unconstitutional statutes.
America established a government with only the specific enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Congress, and the people for that matter, long ago abandoned the notion of a limited government. However, the congress, and the people for that matter, failed to amend the Constitution to reflect the additional powers congress assumed.
There are certainly consequences for a display of civil disobedience. The courts can then decide if the statute in question is constitutional.
We all tried that and Frist did as Frist always does so well, capitulated and put Specter in charge instead of Kyl.
I'm still mad about that. We all called, sent faxes and emails protesting about Specter and then Bush got Santorum and campaigned with Specter to get him reelected. It serves Bush right, but I'm not rejoicing in it because AMERICA and AMERICANS are ultimately the ones who are going to pay for their stupidity.
Truer words were never spoken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.