Arlen Specter: “I had introduced legislation in the 109th Congress to provide standing to the Congress to go to court when the President…”

“I had introduced legislation in the 109th Congress to provide standing to the Congress to go to court when the President issues signing statements which, in effect, cherry-picked the provisions in the legislation he liked and disregarded the provisions in the legislation he disliked. That kind of a proceeding, in my view, is unconstitutional because the Constitution says that we present a bill to the President; he either signs it or vetoes it. His veto is subject to override on a two-thirds vote. But, the President cannot pick and choose among the provisions of the act. When we passed the PATRIOT Act, there were some provisions very carefully negotiated as to congressional oversight. No objection had been raised by the Department of Justice in our discussions as we negotiated about the bill. And then, when the President signed the bill, the President specifically said that he would not pay attention to those provisions if he felt that his Executive power would be impinged upon. If he disagreed with the provisions, he should have told us before we legislated. Similarly, in the McCain Anti-Torture legislation, which passed the Senate 90 to 9, a compromise was struck between the White House and Senator McCain. And here again, the President's signing statement seems to undermine the compromise that was struck.”