By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against

President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.

Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined.

Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law.

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"

Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees.

Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws.

Don't ya just love politics?

I guess the Repulbican's aren't as unified as I thought.

Am I the only one who finds it refreshing that a party does not always agree. Good lord, thats what discussion is for.

Why must a party only have ONE idea, ONE way...thats a bogus statement.

If Bush was told it was ok to do things by a lawyer or advisor and it is found out that he could not do that afterall, its good that there are people from his party that will tell him that. At least I think so. Better to be truthful than cover it up!

Wow. I've never heard of a situation like this before. This is America... anything is possible.

This situation has come up before, just not out in the news like this one...go figure!

Yeah its really wonderful that they don't agree.

In an election year.

They have given this president unlimited power, and now, when their seats are up, they want to sue him.

Only in America.

Exactly, only in America would people be upset that every single rank and file person does not agree with their party. Why should they have to?

I do not vote for someone because the guy down in Texas or New Mexico think they are doing a great job and agree with them. I vote for someone based on what I believe and how I feel and what I want out of someone.

Thast why I think it is funny when people say the Dems aren't together or the Repubs aren't.

God forbid someone have a different idea or way to approach something.