"Roll Call" has a story from yesterday based on a press release from Senator Arlen Specter (R. PA), who is desperate for any attention because he is in a fight for his political life in his Senate race in 2010. The issue? A series of bills designed to "curb overreaching of [the] Executive Branch." This is captured in three pieces of legislation he has introduced that are designed to place "new controls on the use of presidential signing statements and electronic surveillance." The electronic surveillance is divided into two parts: one bill that fast tracks warrantless wiretapping cases to the Supreme Court and another that absolves telephone companies from suits that stem from the release of information to government.
The other? It appears that Specter is trying to revive the massive attention he received as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006 when he investigated the use of the signing statement by the Bush administration. His bill, S. 875, is designed to "regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the interpretation of Acts of Congress," and is so far co-sponsored by two other senators, Charles Grassley (R. IA) and Jon Tester (D. MT).
Specter's bill is designed to "prohibit courts from relying on, or deferring to, presidential signing statements as a source of authority when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress." He challenges that the signing statement has "too often been used to undermine congressional intent," though no proof is provided of such a case.
This appears to be repeat of an earlier attempt by Specter to broadcast his challenge to the signing statement. Like those earlier attempts, they are all style and no substance.
There is no evidence to suggest that the courts are influenced by the presidential signing statement. The Government Accountability Office did an investigation of the signing statements issued by President Bush to appropriation bills in 2006, and also whether the signing statements had any influence over court interpretation of federal law, and found that, in a search of all cases dating back over 60 years, that there were "fewer than 140 cases that cited presidential signing statements," and of those that did, it was for trivial or fact-based reasons, and not central to the decision in the case.
Further, even if the legislation were to succeed, it seems to me to be an unconstitutional intrusion upon the prerogatives of the court. One branch cannot tell another branch how to interpret the law, and that is precisely what Specter's bill does.
So for Specter--good luck in garnering as much attention as possible. You're gonna need it.
