The Bush veto by "signing statement"

AP/NY Times:

A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

''It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution,'' Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. ''I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.''

Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.

''Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton,'' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

''There's less here than meets the eye,'' Cornyn said. ''The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.''

...

Cornyn is correct. Specter is unnecessarily engaging in a turf battle that a third branch is the ultimate arbiter of. Specter is just flat wrong on the intercepts of enemy communications and is himself engaging in a legislative power grab that attempts to narrow the President's inherent powers in a time of war. The courts should reject his position, but it looks like the Bush administration is instead going to reach some kind of compromise, no doubt signed with a signing statement rejecting Specter's position.

Update: Gateway Pundit has more on the media treatment of this issue under a post titled,

The AP: It's Official, Bush Is a Tyrant!

check it out.