Mary, I'm with you on the signing statements. They wouldn't stand up in a court of law would they? So how do we get a judge to look at them? And it's way past time for the Read the Bill bill to get going. I don't believe for a minute that Specter didn't know the provision was snuck in at the last minute. Like you, I'm looking for someone to be fired over that.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 7, 2007 05:34 AMNo "staff" person in Spector's office "snuck in" anything without the fine Senator's knowing. Just more hogwash.
Posted by Judith at February 7, 2007 06:17 AMI don't believe Specter was unaware of this "insertion". If he was, he would have fired the staffer and immediately called for a revision in the law. At this point, I think he's just trying to weasel his way out of the controversy. He's saying "the dog changed my homework".
Posted by Marvyt at February 7, 2007 06:17 AM"Yes, Minister" says it all.
Only this isn't Britain and we don't have an aristocracy in this country, despite what some people might think.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 7, 2007 06:51 AMOne has to wonder, AGAIN, just what it was that the Rep DO NOTHING Congress was really doing these past years; we hear the Lobbyists and now the Staffers as well were writing the Bills? Specter makes it sound like it was his janitor who saw a piece of paper on the floor and pasted it onto the Bill. Damn help!
Iamcoyote: Balkinization ran a series of discussions on the Signing Statements. It ain't easy getting them stopped despite how they sidestep our process of govt. And now, Bush is closing in on 2,000 of them? I can't help but think of the liability of those who are forced to follow the directive of the Signing Statement and not the Law of the Land - of course Bush doesn't acknowledge the little people in his defense of the signing statements. One would have to wonder of the actual validity of any of the laws that have had signing statements attached to them.
Posted by mainsailset at February 7, 2007 07:02 AMGet rid of signing statements, period. Make them unlawful.
Posted by Judith at February 7, 2007 07:22 AMmainsailset, thanks! I'll head over to Balkinization! I should have looked earlier, they explain things so that even I can understand.
Duckman - Yes, Minister is crazy! Love that Brit tv.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 7, 2007 07:39 AMLook, if it was all a mistake by the Senatorial staff, a quick unanimous amendment can fix it?
Posted by whenwego at February 7, 2007 08:16 AMSigning Statements = no checks and balances.
The Founding Fathers would have burned the Constitution rather than have the President be allowed to write signing statements.
Does Arlen the Magnificent think ANYONE believes this "staffer dun it" lie?
Where's the rage at being snookered, bamboozled, mislead and used, Arlen? Oh, you don't have any?
That's all we need to know.
Posted by euzoius at February 7, 2007 11:16 AMI may not have read the final version of the so-called Patriot Act; but most of what I saw of it places it in direct conflict with several provisions of the Bill of Rights and grants the executive power that the Constitution purposelfully places in other parts of the government.
In the spirit of Constitutional Law, there is absolutely nothing patriotic about the act. The provision in question strikes me as being consistent with the spirit and the intent of the act.
I can think of two reasons for attacking the bill in this fashion. One is to find a contentious peripheral issue as a way to frame the act as flawed. I hope this is what is actually going on. Another is simply because someone's buddy got hurt in a way that was not anticipated when the law was passed. I hope this is not what is going on. For if it is, then it is one more example of how the act in question and the Military Commissions act will work together to create at two class society - one class will exist above and beyond the constraints of law another class will beyond its protections.
Posted by steve at February 7, 2007 01:47 PM