As a follow-up to my previous post on President Bush’s unhealthy (to our democracy) infatuation with signing statements, I offer the cartoon above, courtesy of Ben Sargent and the Austin American-Statesman, and the article below, courtesy of Thomas Ferraro and the Washington Post:

Specter seeks to challenge Bush’s power on bills

A top Senate Republican said on Monday he will challenge U.S. President George W. Bush’s practice of claiming a right to ignore or not enforce sections of bills that he signs into law.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he plans to introduce legislation this week that would give the U.S. Congress the right to bring a lawsuit against Bush’s “signing statements.”

Bush has used these statements to reserve the right not to enforce certain provisions of laws if he believes they impinge on his authority or interpretation of the Constitution.

An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the U.S. constitution by issuing more than 800 signing statements to highlight provisions of laws he might not enforce, more than every previous U.S. president combined.

ABA President Michael Greco noted that under the Constitution there is a balance of power in which Congress is to pass bills and the president is to sign or veto them, and give lawmakers an opportunity to override any veto.

“By using a signing statement to ignore an entire or portions of a new law, the president undermines this entire system of checks and balances,” Greco told reporters in releasing the report.

Speaking in the Senate, Specter said his legislation would authorize a judicial review, with the goal of having such actions “declared unconstitutional.”

The White House has defended signing statements, saying they have been used by past presidents and help the public understand how a given law will be enforced and can provide guidance to courts.

For example, Bush signed a bill banning the torture of U.S.-held prisoners, but used a signing statement to signal that he might bypass the ban.

He has also used them to show that he might ignore provisions in an anti-terrorism law seeking more congressional oversight and reject a requirement that government scientists transmit findings to Congress uncensored.

Specter’s Judiciary Committee held a hearing on presidential signing statements last month and he also concluded they “threaten our separation of powers.”

Specter said his staff was drafting a bill to challenge signing statements with Bruce Fein, a former member of the Reagan administration who also served on the ABA task force.