you don't get to be "very disappointed" that hard choices have to made to bring one our own back.

vote to Authorize Military Force in Afghanistan is that he wasn't in the Senate yet.

What does it matter what Congress thinks? This is a matter for the Commander-in-Chief.

which is what the post implies.

which gives the authority to do exactly what he did.

Obama campaigned against Bush in 2008 saying his signing statements were not legal. And he was right -- they were not and his are not.

If they try for impeachment then the same applies to Bush and all his signing statements must be revoked.

Congress knew.

of the opinion of a president on the meaning and constitutionality of a specific part of
a bill he is signing into law. Whether the notification part of this law is constitutional or
not has no bearing on any other signing statements on unrelated laws.

Some are legal, some aren't, and many could come into question.

Signing statements are statements of opinion from the President. No more, no less. They have no legal effect. They have never been cited in a court case.

Which means you're just fine with the rule of men. Until one from a different party gets elected.

How the fuck can people not respect the lessons of history regarding government by law vs. government by dictat?

Signing statements do not exempt the President from the Constitutional mandate that the President must faithfully execute the law. For a radically good reason.

amend or modify or limit legislation, via a signing statement.

Until very recent Presidents, signing statements did not do that. There was no attempt to make them substantive.

He just needs to say that signing it doesn't mean that he feels bound by any part of the legislation which is itself unconstitutional.

Congress cannot grant themselves executive authority.

And it may be unconstitutional. I was listening to John McCain on my local radio station in Phoenix and he said he thought the law was an overreach by Congress on the Executive authority.

But if the law is otherwise unobjectionable why go to the trouble? It only needs to be adjudicated if/when a conflict occurs.

In most cases, I'm sure that the President has no objection to notifying Congress before taking action. So he can intend to follow the requirements of the law even when he recognizes that they can't constitutionally require him to do so. This is commonly what the so-called "signing statements" say. Essentially - "I intend to do what you attempt to 'require' of me whenever possible, but I want to make it clear that you can't actually require it, so I'm not going to agree that future presidential authority is constrained in that manner"

I was listening to John McCain on my local radio station in Phoenix and he said he thought the law was an overreach by Congress on the Executive authority.

Well... I wouldn't lean on him as a reliable judge of such matters... but that's about the size of it.

What's done is done, there was no time to go to the SCOTUS and say "we think this law is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow the President to make emergency exchanges."

Obama) that makes it also a Congressional matter.

A law can't change the constitution.

If something is an executive matter (as this clearly is) and Congress passes a law trying to insert themselves into it... the fact that the President signs the law doesn't make it any more constitutional.

Congress cannot require the president to give them prior notice of an act that would otherwise be an entirely executive responsibility.

including the power

Legislation can't change that.

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Yep... which does not include the ability to pass a law that says that they get input in executive matters. In this case, the ability to stick their head in on foreign negotiations.

I don't know of a dispute that Congress and the President both have Constitutional power act in the sphere of our armed forces.

Of course they both have power to act... but their powers are not the same. "Come tell us first before exercising executive authority" is simply not within their powers.

This stuggle between the executive and legislative branches is nothing new (regardless of the party that controls in either case)... but the principal has been pretty settled law for most of a century.

Last edited Wed Jun 4, 2014, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

by expressly barring the expenditure of appropriated Defense Department funds for such a transfer without prior notice and certification. (There are several relevant statutory provisions -- the one directed at the President only requires notice, but separate provisions in the Defense Department Appropriations bills bar the expenditure of funds in connection with a transfer.) By barring the expenditure of funds the legislative branch seeks to check the exercise of executive branch power. Is that unconsititutional? I daresay that most of us around during the Vietnam War did not think so when Congress began the process of shutting down the conduct of the war by restricting the expenditure of appropriated funds in support of the war.

In short -- its more complicated that some of the posts here suggest.

Take a simpler case. Republicans take control of the Senate this year and decide that they don't want the President to conduct any more foreign policy. So they pass a law that says that no government money can be expended for international communication of any sort. No foreign trips, no international phone calls or emails... no entry for foreign citizens with diplomatic passports (etc etc).

Just because they're using the "power of the purse" (clearly a legislative authority) to try to contrain the President doesn't make it constitutional. The President is the "sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations". If they pass a law that tramples on that, he doesn't have to follow it.

(or would have been had it passed and somehow avoided a veto) - though it's above my pay grade to say whether the entire thing was.

IMO, it's pretty clearly outside the bounds of congressional authority to restrict specific types of missions without coming back to Congress for approval.

I don't think that the overall defunding scheme is necessarily unconstitutional if we're talking about a war - since the legislative branch does have a role to play in declaring war. There's no form required for that declaration, but funding the war would certainly count... so defunding it should also be within their ability.

Is that the choice?

They could also, for instance, refuse to fund any amphibious assault equipment... which would eventually influence the ability to conduct a certain type of warfare... they could also impeach and remove a President who went far afield...

... but in general, yes. Congress doesn't have an executive role to play and can't give itself one by legislation (even if the President signs the bill into law).

Give them notice and then so what? They can't do anything about it. Does it help them in any way in doing of their duties?

It's no surprise that the President changed his mind on things like signing statements when he left the legislative branch for the executive. They all think that they should be the ones making the decisions.

Very few times I have agreed with her.

I'll give her that.

repeatedly sweeps the muzzle of that firearm at the assembled press and bystanders in the rotunda of the capitol building?

n/t

but alas, GOPers are two face assholes. They care not for soldiers nor veterans.

why is Susan Rice and Di Fi apologizing? If they knew about it then, why aren't the dems raising holy hell?

requirements that one was underway. If it did, why the apology? They f'd up and acknowledge it.

Just because you want to believe it, doesn't make it true.

"Despite some restrictions, the National Defense Authorization Act gives authority, and has since 2012, to the president to resume prisoner transfers without congressional approval through a National Security Waiver. Under this provision, the secretary of defense can approve a transfer if he, in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of national intelligence, determines that adequate steps are being taken to “substantially mitigate” the potential risk that a former prisoner might engage in future acts of terrorism once home."

http://www.msnbc.com/up-with-steve-kornacki/what-obama-can-do-right-now-close-

It's under Section 1028 of the NDAA:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text

I for one don't have a problem with the President, based on his signing statement, ignoring the 30 day requirement/certification requirement.

But the language you quote about a waiver doesn't relieve the administration's obligation under the statute to give a 30 day written certification to Congress. Section 1028(b)(1)(A) through (F) set out the six elements that must be included in the certification. The National Security Waiver provision (Section 1028(d)) creates an exception so that the certification and advance notice doesn't have to satisfy elements (D) and (E), but it does not relieve the obligation to give a timely written certification regarding the other elements. Was that done? I have no idea, but the administration's decision not to defend itself on the grounds that it did comply suggests that it it didn't.

Again, I'm not bothered by the administration's conduct because I have no problem with the President refusing to comply with a provision that he has consistently taken the position is unconstitutional. If he's wrong, it should be sorted out by the courts.

in the first place.....

I start from that point. We had children/minors in that detainee camp/prison a few years back. Right there we lost what tiny thread of reason we had for its existence. I'd rather have them all sent home than keep people sitting in there without a trial in an international court. American citizens or not - we are better (should be) than this.

Is this was expedited to knock the VA stories out of the news and unintentionally created a larger shitstorm.

If course that opinion means nothing but the Administration advisors wouldn't be doing their jobs if it wasn't factored in the decision.

last week to finalize the details. It was a big, planned operation with a lot of moving parts. It couldn't happen at a whim. So...no.

You should have volunteered for a swap.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for you.

Repulsive politicians.

there was a caller on a local radio show talking about how the movements of the 5 released prisoners could be tracked from satellites. In theory, it seems plausible. If that is indeed the case, then watching these 5, following their communications and movements, etc. could net out to be an effective way to unearth the taliban's key locations.

going to do, immediately, after ten years in Gitmo? What's the big picture for potential damage to America? Attack our bases in Qatar? Hopefully we already have solid security measures everywhere. Re-take command of an organization that we fairly easily overran in 2001-2002? They did get captured, so they were not all that and a bag of chips.

I did say I was wading into conspiracy territory.

Now I'm removing the tinfoil.

Why did they have to know? So they could get in the way? What does DF have against this?

Top Lawmakers Say White House Broke Law in Bergdahl Deal
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/top-lawmakers-say-white-house-broke-law-bergdahl-deal-n121721

Was Bergdahl swap legal? Depends on who you ask:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/politics/bergdahl-swap-legality/