Well sue the President why don't you...

Well, thats what Senator Arlen Specter just might do. According to this MSN article, Senator Specter, whom I personally do not like because of past mongering, is preparing a Bill that would allow Congress to sue Bush in Federal court. While this is most interesting, you may be wondering why would a Republican sue another Republican (whom in this case is the president).

Well, it appears that Bush, whom over his entire presidency has only cast a veto once on legislation that hits his desk, has been doing something quite....odd. It comes down to something called 'signing statement'. It seems that he has issued "..at least 750 signing statements during his presidency". Further, according to the article "The American Bar Association estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined."

I did not know what exactly a 'signing statement' was so, I thought I would consult wikipedia to help shed some light on this.

A signing statement is a written proclamation issued by the government executive power that accompanies the signing of a law passed by the government's legislature.

Historically their main use is for rhetorical or political proclamations. Presidents of the United States, however, have also used such statements to set forth how they intend the rest of the executive branch of the federal government to interpret and enforce the new law.

...

Generally any executive statement made with the signing of a law can be said to be a signing statement. Christopher Kelley, a political scientist who has analyzed signing statements, groups them into three categories:

• Rhetorical, "this is a great law"
• Political, "this law meets the need of our unions"
• Constitutional, "I'm signing this law, but won't enforce section 2"

Bush's use of signing statements seems to be a way for him and his administration to continue to do what they want, when they want to do it when it pertains to certain things. Such as anything to do with the US being at war, terrorists, or immigration.

I firmly believe in checks and balances. The founding fathers did not want one branch of the government to have ultimate authority. This seems to basically give the president the final word on legislation in a way. While I am not one for lawyers and lawsuits, if anyone else can be sued then so can the president gosh darnit.

I'm not fluent in the legalese so I leave it to you guys to help me understand this if I have misinterpreted any of it wrong.

~Brian