Obama Issues Signing Statement On War Spending BIll

On Friday, President Obama signed a new war spending bill into law, but "not without taking a page from his predecessor and ignoring a few elements in the legislation," the Hill reports.

Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill.


President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative.

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Here is the last paragraph of his statement:

However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

Okay... This seems... I don't know, something doesn't smell right here. Why should the treasury NOT have to brief the congress, and why shouldn't we reach for higher standards in labor and enviromental issues? I don't get it.

Edit: Link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/obama-issues-statement-on_n_221821.html

using them to circumvent law or the constitution is. Obama is saying here that this legislation is in conflict with the constitutions grant of authority to the president. He is telling them he will not comply.

You'd think those smart guys who wrote our constitution would have thought of something like that...

on what laws to be enforced and what not to be enforced? You know, that's why they are pissed at obama for DADT and DOMA, he needs to stop those laws and the DOJ needs to not defend them and yada yada yada.

Truth is, signing statements are gray areas - I personally believe they are unconstitutional and that his option is to veto a law he doesn't approve of. But I've read some writings of legal scholars that purport the signing statements can be legal, it depends on what they involve. I suppose that this individual signing statement would need to be challenged in court.

one would hope for consistency in this. Signing statements, if they are limited in scope, and if they merely clarify or interpret what the Potus believes is the intent of a specific part of the statute, don't really bother me. If there is an entire section of the statute with which the Executive disagrees, then he/she should veto the whole bill and send it back to Congress to be rewritten.

and challenge the specific section in Federal Court.

And you know what happened.

is an issue for the Supreme Court.

Bush was a problem because he abused signing statements. A practice Obama is not continuing. Signing statements will continue to be used to tell congress that the executive will not abrogate the constitution in favor of legislation.

You already know everything I'm about to say, but oh well.

No one is asking the DOJ to stop "enforcing" DOMA. That has zero do to with the DOJ's decision to file a motion to dismiss and not just cite DOMA but use Bush arguments in defending it. The DOJ is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to file a motion to dismiss. None. Zero. Nada. Fulfilling their constitutional duty does not require them to file motions to dismiss. They can let it go before a judge. They are able to, without breaking any law or any oath of office, to give their opinion about the merit of the law, if asked or required in court.

People who are upset about DADT, aren't upset at Obama the man - they are upset that it is not a policy priority for the administration. Maybe they're right. Maybe their wrong. But you're frame of all of this is disingenuous bullshit and you know it.

and from the Obama WH, as some here have asserted, why has the DOJ finally agreed to meet with lawyers from LAMBDA and GLAD to discuss strategies surrounding future litigation and strategize on how best to proceed.

Your post is entirely accurate.

You think you have some "insight" but you don't - my bet is that the DOJ will tell the lawyers from LAMBDA and GLAD the truth, will try to calm the emotions and deal with the legal facts, the same facts I have been trying to explain here. The DOJ must defend the laws until Congress repeals them or until the courts hold them unconstitutional. The meeting is one of explaining the postion of the DOJ and the administration. Obama did what he legally can about federal benefits and his memorandum was limited in power and reach given DOMA. I would bet that the DOJ will suggest to the lawyers from LAMBDA and GLAD that they do as I have suggested, start putting pressure on congress, use the hate filled and bigoted reasoning as found in the DOMA congressional report to shame them into changing the law.

(and I repeat, generally) under the obligation to defend a statute. There are exceptions - the Bush DOJ actually decided not to try to defend a law which prohibited ads critical of marijuana statutes, on the grounds that it was a clear violation of the 1rst amendment.

While there are arguments to be made that DOMA is in clear violation of the 14th, there are people who will disagree. So, let's assume they were obligated to defend the statute. How they write the brief, the arguments they use, the decision to argue for a rational basis test - these are all things the DOJ has immense leeway on. The decisions they made in HOW they wrote the brief is what has caused such consternation.

It is good that the DOJ is meeting with these groups, but I disagree with you entirely over the nature of this meeting, as do almost everyone who has reported on it. No one expects DOJ lawyers will urge civil liberty lawyers to pursue their agenda in Congress. It's absurd to even thing that DOJ lawyers would be remotely involved in suggesting that. THe meeting is specifically about how to proceed with pending DOMA cases.

"At the meeting — which hasn’t been announced and is expected to include leading gay rights groups like GLAD and Lambda Legal — both sides are expected to hash out how to proceed with pending DOMA cases .... It remains to be seen, however, whether the meeting will achieve in a long term sense what gay rights lawyers told me they were and are looking for — an ongoing, less-confrontational interaction with the administration in the context of specific cases"

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/justice-department/obama-administration-set-to-hold-powwow-with-big-gay-groups/

You are using arguments which have been proven false. Again, the distortions of the law and legal precedent in an effort to make some fact that doesn't exist. The law you reference would be this little snippet.


In fact, George Bush did nothing, the Solicitor General he nominated and that was confirmed by the senate, acted after "the controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court."



Prior to the district court ruling the law unconstitutional, the DOJ was defending it in the district court. They were doing then what they are doing now in the Smelt case, they defended legislation passed by congress and signed into law by the president. They were doing their job. DOMA has not been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. DOJ must defend laws until they are deemed unconstitutional by a court of law.

And the phrase you highlight means what exactly?

"both sides are expected to hash out how to proceed with pending DOMA cases"

That simply is predicting what will be talked about, not what conclusions will be reached.

Sorry, you continue to think that the power to change is in the Obama administration's hands. It is not. Clinton held that power and he failed to veto the laws. Now it is up to congress to repeal the law and/or the courts to rule it unconstitutional. Just as the Plaintiff's have the right to representation, so too does the Defendant. The DOJ is the agency which defends the laws passed by congress.

I wrote "Bush's DOJ," so I don't understand why you claim that I wrote that "George Bush" did something. "Bush's DOJ" does not equal Bush. You tend to erect illegitimate strawmen, arguments that others did not make, and then debate them.

The fact of the matter is just as I wrote: "the Bush DOJ actually decided not to try to defend a law which prohibited ads critical of marijuana statutes, on the grounds that it was a clear violation of the 1rst amendment."

Period. It is perfectly valid for you to argue they did that after a lower court had ruled it unconstitutional, but the fact remains as I wrote it: they made the decision not to defend the statute.

The phrase I highlighted makes its point self evident. The meeting is not, as you try to assert, going to be anything at all about DOJ attorneys telling LAMBDA attorneys to pursue their agenda legislatively in Congress. The meeting is not about calming anyone's emotions. The meeting is about "both sides (expecting) to hash out how to proceed with pending DOMA cases."

The Obama DOJ has a role to play here. Of course, they cannot arbitrarily decide the law is unconstitutional, but (and again, you keep ignoring this point), they have a lot of leeway within their prescribed role: how they write the brief, the arguments they use, the decision to employ a rational basis test, etc. All these decisions have profound impact on the future success of various complaints.

to now come back and try to deflect with the nonsense about Bush's DOJ is just being silly.

You were wrong to assume that the DOJ's position on that ad is the same as what you want them to take on the DOMA issues. The facts always help when trying to understand and argue a point.

I disagree with your interpretation of the statement. I think it will be the DOJ trying to explain to the GLBT legal representatives how limited their powers are, how they are required by statute to defend laws.

It is the Smelt lawyers job to prove their case. It is the DOJ's job to defend the case.

Try to keep a balance and try to understand the rule of law.

"the Bush DOJ actually decided not to try to defend a law which prohibited ads critical of marijuana statutes, on the grounds that it was a clear violation of the 1rst amendment."

And you once again ignore the larger point:

"The Obama DOJ has a role to play here. Of course, they cannot arbitrarily decide the law is unconstitutional, but (and again, you keep ignoring this point), they have a lot of leeway within their prescribed role: how they write the brief, the arguments they use, the decision to employ a rational basis test, etc. All these decisions have profound impact on the future success of various complaints."

You really do need to try to stick to the facts.

I didn't ignore the last paragraph of your post. I've responded to it and the silly hopes you hold time and time again. The DOJ's job is to defend the law. They cannot just say "fuck it, we will throw the case" - that is a violation of their statutory and ethical duties. Until the courts hold the law unconstitutional or until congress repeals it they must defend it.

like the argument that no same sex marriage is valid and that children of hetro couples are healthier than children of same sex couples, blah blah balh.

The DOJ did have to continue to litigate Smelt II just as it had argued Smelt I. The 9th circuit had already decided Smelt. Legal scholars agree that Smelt is a weak case and are glad that the gov't is trying to get it dismissed before it results in bad precedent.

Full of shit would be you and your inability to argue without throwing out insults. Stick to the issues and stick your personal attacks where they belong.

But whatever, I'm too tired to deal with complete horseshit today.

Damn shame you didn't read the brief or you don't understand it. The conflicts of laws analysis/legal argument that the DOJ did use, the one that has been demonized by the critics, was a valid legal argument to support sect 1 of DOMA, that is that a marriage in one state is not automatically recognized in another state. Making this argument acknowledges that same sex marriages can be valid and legal in one state. That means the writer (the DOJ) acknowledges the validity of same sex marriages.

The horseshit appears to be what you are accustomed to as the facts seem to escape you.

thus, he can ignore it.

you crack me up.

What is the harm in pressing for higher standards in environment and labor? And why shouldn't the Treasury tell the congress what is going on in the World Bank? I don't understand what is wrong with that.

He is clarifying his authority as the executive. You have to remember that Obama is a constitutional attorney. Frankly im surprised this doesn't make more sense to you. If congress passed a law directing the president to only nominate people to posts that had specific qualifications, that would be an attempt by the legislature to take power from the executive. Obama would be required to at least state a refutation in order to dispel the possibility of acceptance. This act would occur regardless of whether he actually did use the very same qualifications in his selection method.

Or lack there of.

I am asking what is the harm in transparency between the Treasury and the Congress when it regards the world bank.

the treasury's job is not to monitor the IMF and thus there is no need for them to report. If congress wants to monitor the IMF, they can set up a committee. This is a clear case of "not my job".

I'm simply asking for clarification from people who might know more about it than I do. It is no reason for you to be rude.

why should Pres. Obama have to show all of his?

This Congress is more than just disappointing. So far it's done nothing but cater to their deep-pocketed lobbyist friends, as their votes are showing.

Face it, Congress, whether Dem or Rethug, think big corp and big pharma first. To us they say "take a long walk off a very short pier, and swim!".

We Dems need to ask ourselves why Congress isn't fighting to get Al Franken seated, or at the very least, make a stink about it. Well, my belief is, it's because they've gotten more than 51 seats, enough to put them in the majority and K Street is flocking to their offices and no longer to the Repubs' doors. That's what this is all about.

Judging by their votes (except for the token ones so we'll still believe they're Democrats and keep voting them back into power for more K Street Cash)they intend to fight against any change that could benefit us little people.

I think Pres. Obama has had enough.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have a very good point, but I simply focused on posting the promise because my goal was to provide you guys with the words Obama used during the campaign, so that we can have a good frame of reference. Again, your reasoning is valid but my goal wasn't to take sides.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that."

He did not promise no signing statements, quite to the contrary, actually.

has to do what in order to get funding via the World Bank!
Let's make sure that not only do they get to decide,
but then they get to tell the President what it is that he will have to say
to that country.

So yeah...let's have the legislative Branch do this,
cause.....its just a brilliant idea! :sarcasm:

and not the executive?

by magic perhaps?

the constitutionality of a law, not the role of the executive.

In your post that I responded to, you seem to be implying the opposite.

Do you believe in a unitary executive?

The interpretation of the law is up to the judicial branch.

with foreign policy negotiations. Although I disagree with ALL signing statements and any President using them, I understand why Obama would not want anyone or anything interfering with foreign policy. I still believe if a President has a problem with a bill...as written...he should veto it!

Congress passes laws; the executive executes them.

Laws that dictate how he conducts himself in foreign policy negotiations infringe on his authority.


Now, bush NEEDED someone to infringe on his authority, because he was a lying sack of shit and an idiot. He and his enablers pitched this "unitary executive" crap wherein he supposedly could do any and every thing he wanted, without ANY oversight. And congress let him get away with it. That needs to be ratcheted back. But there is a line to be drawn, and I don't blame Obama for attempting to define it. The wording of this thing sounds a little intrusive; maybe they were testing to see how much they could push him around.

At first glance this does not look good.

Presidents do not have the option to pick and choose which laws they are going to enforce.

Obama used the signing statement the way it should be used. To protect the executives presidential prerogative.

Just because Junior fouled the process with his overuse/abuse, doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose nor does it mean they are all bad.

In this case, it appears the Congress wants to dictate foreign policy. The specifics are irrelevant although no doubt will be red herring to some. It's the principle of separation of powers that Obama is protecting.

something DU has been lacking lately.

But come on.....we both know that it is so much simpler to boil it all down to trusting congress,
and doubting this President on every goddamn moves he makes, cause you know......
this president allows the Legislative branch to actually write the laws,
so he must not have shit to say about any of the language. :eyes:

So let's all just reason that Obama must be just like Bush,
cause see....he's President and he has to be up to no good.

Congress on the other hand is such a breath of fresh air!
So glad to have them fully in charge of the language utilized
each and every time! :eyes:

The ConservaDems and Blue Dogs seem to have suddenly found their voice.

:puke:

Not as a way of contradicting a law without vetoing it, but as a way to communicate disagreements with Congress about the constitutionality of a law, and informing Congress when they're overstepping their bounds.

Congress is perfectly free to sue, and let the third branch decide this...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The way to get a person to see your point of view is to frame them as "ignorant", instead of explaining why they might be misunderstanding something.

n/t ;)

and thus are simply deserving of slander. No reason to argue with a birther or any member of the DU committee for knee jerk reactions.

I don't understand, which is why I posted and asked. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

A little research might do you some good in the future.

No need to be rude. Since when is it a crime to ask a question?

If I had known Obama would become what I expected from Hillary I would have voted for the real thing.

"strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress"; it means that he will decide how and when, which is one of the things I hired him to do.

Get it?
Something does seem a little rancid here

when done by a Democrat. Or so I hear.

cause OBama = Bush everytime....or so I hear.

I hold Obama to a higher standard,because he was elected and chosen by the people where as Bush was a low life useless slug who wasn't. i have always considered signing statements to be wrong. If he doesn't like a bill he should veto it.I know i would support him in that because I trust him to do the right thing. And when you hear that you shouldn't pay that any mind to it, that is just ignorant to equate Obama to Bush..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you should not be so quick to judge.

and passes just the right laws, and the President shouldn't have shit to say about anything.

I'm not in that group.

Unlike when Bush was in office, I tend to trust President Obama more than I do the Senate/Congress and their bills.

On the one hand, this President is different from the last one in that he allows the legislative branch to actual craft the bills that are submitted to congress (as opposed to the WH submitting bills to be passed), and so him reserving the right to make signing statements when he feels that the language of certain sections clash with the executive power rendered him by the constitution is something that he had forewarned he would do.

In this case, he is formally stating that certain provisions would interfere with his ability to conduct how he sees fit International diplomatic negotiations because the bill forces him to take certain positions, or doesn't let him negotiate unless Congress has previously approved of the negotiations before he actually negotiates.

I remember Pres. Obama distinctly stating that he would make signing statements to earmark what he felt was unconstitutional. :shrug:

“There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused,” Obama said in a March memo. “At the same time, such signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections.”




If some are stating that this President is not allowed to do what was allowed to be done by the 4 previous Presidents, then the question needs to be asked; why is it that Obama is not allowed to make signing statements after he forewarned that he would and the reasons why.

We all know that the language of the bill at issue is much more complex than in the way that it is being written in the OP. To simply conclude that Obama must be acting nefariously on this because Bush was nefarious in everything he did is simplifying the entire discussion being had here.....and some of us do know, in our hearts of hearts, that this is what is going on with this article from the Hill newspaper; a generalized oversimplification of the ramifications of what that bill does in those sections.

The end result sought is the attempt to equate Obama to George Bush just because he is doing something remotely similar (but not really really) is on its face-- good for the sake of simplistic propaganda against this President, but I'm not sure that the spin on it is really as simple as it appears.


For context....,
The full text of Obama's statement is below and available on the White House website....

* * * * *
Today I have signed into law H.R. 2346, the "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009." This Act provides the necessary resources for our troops while supporting ongoing diplomatic and development efforts around the world.

We face a security situation abroad that demands urgent attention. The Taliban is resurgent and al Qaeda is increasing its attacks from its safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The funding provided in this Act will ensure that the full force of the United States is engaged in an overall effort to defeat al Qaeda and uproot this safe haven.

At the same time, funding contained in this Act will provide resources to help create political and economic stability in post-conflict areas. These funds will assist Afghans and Iraqis in protecting and sustaining their infrastructure and building their capacity for more responsive and transparent governance. The Act also provides critical support for continued U.S. diplomatic and development activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

In addition, this Act includes funding for other domestic and international issues, including nearly $8 billion to enhance our Nation's capability to respond to the potential spread of the H1N1 flu outbreak. It also expands the resources available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by allowing it to boost its lending ability. Many developing countries are experiencing severe economic decline and a massive withdrawal of capital, and the IMF needs to make sure it has the resources necessary to effectively respond to the current financial crisis.

However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/obama-issues-statement-on_n_221821.html

which is why I believe he should use his clearly constitutional powers as CIC to issue a stop loss directive which would immediately halt the investigations, witchhunts and discharges under DADT.

Use his authority and then have Congress do their job and repeal the statute (which will be even easier for them to do if Potus renders it irrelevant.)

*** "Stop-loss was created by the United States Congress after the Vietnam War. Its use is founded on Title 10, United States Code, Section 12305(a) which states in part: "... the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States."

It's about the fact that dictating Foreign policy is not the function of the legislative branch.

The signing statement was inserted to state that the language which is read into the bill
is being objected to as unconstitutional by the executive branch.

obviously, he chose the latter.

This is the proper way to use a signing statement. Please do some research before you spew your right wing bullshit.

Signing statements have never been anything but a politically, legally and constitutionally grey area. However, it was not much of an issue up until Presidents started using signing statements to DISREGARD parts of laws they were about to pass, rather than using signing statements to explain how they planed to execute the law they were about to sign.

That changed under George W. Bush as far as I can see. And in this case, Obama is using a signing statement to disregard part of a bill he's passing into law. That's a page right out of Bush's book, not a "proper" process of the long (and grey) history of signing statements.

The most proper process for handling a bill sent to the presidents desks that includes elements that the president does not agree with is a VETO.

Actually, I am 100% correct.

Please research more carefully in the future.

That Michele Bachman is my favorite. She makes it so easy to pick between liberty and tyranny.

I stayed away for a good while... Maybe I shouldn't have come back if it is no longer okay to ask questions when you don't understand something.

but I can't seem to locate it. Congress is overreaching here.

I don't remember presidents using signing statements to disregard wholesale sections of legislation prior to George W. Bush. I do recall that signing statements existed, but never do I remember any instance where they rose to the level of stating that the President would assert some "authority" to pass a bill into law but ignore certain parts of it.

To me, that flies in the face of how I think our government should run, and is of course wide open to abuse, as we've seen. If a President feels that a piece of legislation would interfere with his ability to carry out his duties as President, then he (or she) can VETO THE BILL. Not doing so is the political cowards way out.

Furthermore, if everyone wasn't in such a rush to just defend the man Obama instead of thinking about the Office of the President and what we, as liberals tend to value, we would look at what the Office is objecting to in the bill:

"would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WANT They need to be done, they are the right things to expect from our government. Accountability, particularly when it comes to international money, is critically important.

Maybe I could expect a Republican president to issue a cowardly signing statement to get around that sort of accountability. And recently I've come to expect it from a Democratic President as well, but I shouldn't.

and do a little research since your memory is faulty. Signing statements have been around a long time and they are meant to amplify the presidents opinion on a bill. The most commonly accepted use is when the president feels that a law attempt to abrogate the executive branch's authority, which is EXACTLY they case in this bill.


Essentially, if you actually read his statement,( i know, again with the reading thing) you would notice that he doesn't say he wont do it, just that the legislature doesn't have the authority.


Here's the wiki on signing statements. The only reason you dont know about them is because all other presidents have used them properly, INCLUDING ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

I'm more than well aware that signing statements have been around a long time. I said as much in my post.

However, its widely agreed that George W. Bush used signing statements in an unprecedented way, and that signing statements were not previously accepted as a tool to wholesale ignore pieces of legislation that the President wanted to ignore.

That's what a veto should be for. Signing statements have previously been used to clarify a presidents interpretation of the law he was about to sign, i.e. HOW he would execute the law. Not until George Bush (as far as I am aware) has a president used signing statements to flat out say he was going to pass a law, but ignore the parts of it he doesn't like.

We don't have a line item veto for the President in this country, and there's a reason we don't. Using signing statements in this way makes the President act as a legislator, and that's unacceptable. If Obama doesn't agree with legislation sent to his desk, he should veto that legislation. It's really that simple.

It is pretty amazing to watch the mental gymnastics some people do now that a Democrat is in power. Had this very same bill and signing statement happened under George W. Bush there would be NO ONE defending it. Not one person here.

The only thing that's changed, as far as this specific instance is concerned, is the (D).

"The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.<8> Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.<9>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

Since people are ready to say that Obama is doing something like Bush and that is bad, I think it's fair to wonder that if George Bush had not taken this practice over the top, what would we be thinking about it?

This was for my own clarification.

I didn't like this shit when Bush, and previous administrations, were doing it, and I don't like it now.

does or does not do. Throw the Supreme Court in on that too.

It is obvious that these fuckers will all do whatever they want to do regardless of the Constitution, laws, rules, regulations, honesty, decency, and their oaths of office.

Let's just go ahead and say that the old sports adage "may the best team/man/woman win" should be modified for political application to say: may the interest with the most cash and influence win.

You can tell me what the problem is?

I view this.

Politics as usual in my book. And I'm sick of it.

I didn't vote for Obama so he could be a less-Imperial President than Bush.

through these discussions in excruciating detail during the Presidential campaign last year.

That doesn't mean I have to like them or their use by our Executive branch. And especially by the President I am counting on to reverse the trend.

cause, er....they are signing statements, period.

Like Michael Jackson said, don't matter if its Black or White...
and certainly, Grey is simply too difficult to comprehend for so many.

See, this makes life simpler.....and allows one to automatically know what they are against,
without really knowing those dreaded boring confusing grey details.
In fact, a headline will do the trick everytime....it seems.
Clever, hey?

That is the job of the courts. If he believes a provision in a law is unconstitution, he needs to file that action in federal court and ask for an injunction on the provisions of the law he believes are unconstitutional.

Neither the legislature nor the executive branch get to dictate what is or is not constitutional, unless they are passing an amendment to the contitution.

Obama, like you, is 100% wrong in this instance.

Perhaps we should watch this guy like a hawk, before he does to us what Bush did.

What's on your list of things that are acceptable to wipe his ass with?

You sound a bit confused.

4 years, not half a year.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

FRAK all of that. This is like telling Martin Luther King to wait 4 years for a Civil Rights bill

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just like bush, Obama cannot decide what parts of law he wishes to follow and what parts he does not wish to follow.

If he believes a law is unconstitutional, he should file that action in court, get an injunction allowing him to ignore the law pending the outcome and allow the COURT to decide what is or is not constitutional, since that is kinda their job.

Any action other than that as wrong for Obama as it was for bush.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or get them changed by Congress. Anything else is RULE BY DECREE, which is the tyranny that Bush and Cheney brought us.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The only court that reviews anything are the appeal courts, and SCOTUS.

The trial court is the one where the facts are reviewed and judged.

but you cant just file a case and claim a law is bad. What you don't understand is that someone has to perform an action. For example, Obama could do something unconstitutional or he could ignore a law. In those cases, someone could file on behalf of congress and challenge his actions in federal court.


Do you understand? The judiciary hears challenges to actions, not challenges to laws. no one can call this bad law into review without an action.

You do not need an action at all.

Read the original post, and I challenge one person to defend the ignoring of that legislation...

It is unconstitutional. It is just plain WRONG.

Sec. 1110. Title XVI of the International Financial Institutions Act

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct...

Sec. 1111. Title XIII of the International Financial Institutions Act

(a) Use of Greenhouse Gas Accounting- The Secretary of the Treasury shall seek...

Sec. 1112. (a) Budget Disclosure

The Secretary of the Treasury shall seek...

Sec. 1403. (a) Not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Executive Director of the World Bank and the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional the Fund), shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2346/text


Perhaps Obama has issue with Congress giving directions to one of his cabinet secretaries? Are you arguing to give Congress more power? What about this section of the bill:


Sec. 1305. (a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the ‘Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009’

(1) COVERED RECORD- The term ‘covered record’ means any record

(A) that is a photograph that was taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States; and

(B) for which a certification by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (c) is in effect.

(2) PHOTOGRAPH- The term ‘photograph’ encompasses all photographic images, whether originals or copies, including still photographs, negatives, digital images, films, video tapes, and motion pictures.


Bet you wish Obama used a signing statement there, huh?

Remember when we all called them Sheep and said things like 'country over party'...

Until the actions and not the party of a politician dictate our support and next vote, we will be stuck with a one party system in guise of a sick game of good cop - bad cop.

the matter with this post. Thank you.

That's not how it should be.

People are not defending it because it's Obama, but because it's completely different.

Don't you get it? It's OBAMA. He's doing it.

That's what makes it different.


OBAMA.

Bush's signing statements repeatedly went towards the theory of "Unitary Executive". Obama's is based on the Constitution. What Obama is saying is that if he followed that section of the law to the letter it would tie his hands in the performance of his duties, specifically negotiations and diplomacy.

There is already a "check and balance" in place - Congress must approve any formal agreement.

This is radically different from Bush's signing statements. Or must I go through each one with you?

You may be surprised to know this, but Bush's signing statements also use the Constitution as an excuse. It didn't make them any more legal.

And although Bush may have invoked the Constitution, his statements were predicated on the theory of the Unitary Executive which he prominently used in signing statements.

The Constitution states "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;". Obama was clarifying that he would follow "advice and consent" but would not have terms preeminently dictated by Congress. His statement is supported by the Constitution, as anyone can surely see.

MUCH different from Bush's signing statements which were clearly contrary to the Constitution.

He signed a bill into law, then stated he would not follow part of the law he just signed. The President doesn't get to do that.

execution would still follow Constitutional guidelines. He is following an established precedent. He is prevented Congress from over-reaching their powers contary to the Constitution. Bush used his signing statements to grab more power for himself, contrary to the Constitution.

Regardless, it still destroys your basic premise that those of us who aren't screaming "Obama is just like Bush" is only because it's Obama. We actually see a difference and can logically support it. Whether you agree with that logic or not.

If Bush did this, you certainly wouldn't be jumping in to defend him.

Department to advise the President on how the courts are likely to rule. If you read the statement, you will see that the Justice Department advised Obama that this section was likely unConstitutional, and therefore if it went to court the courts would likely rule against it.

And I have defended Bush the very few times I felt he did something "right". For instance, I supported his selection of Bernanke. I supported the bail-outs which began under Bush. I am disappointed that the banks didn't use the bail-outs to increase B2B loans, which was the purpose.

It's just that it was so rare for Bush to actually do something right.

of defending Obama's actions simply because it's Obama. But that is not the case with all Obama "defenders". I personally am not pleased with everything he's done so far, but for the most part I am pleased and I do not believe his use of signing statements compares with Bush.

I have to go now, but thank you for the discussion.

The problem with Bush is that he believed signing statements were legal documents. They are not legal documents, they're opinions. The ABA review and recommendation resulting from Bush's abuses stated that clearly:



Did Obama break the law? Is he planning to? He issued a signing statement expressing his opinion. Clinton issued about 140 signing statements. I'm not worried that Obama is going to abuse the statements in the way that Bush did.

Obama instructs his administration not to rely on Bush’s signing statements.

It is true that the President has the sole power to negotiate for the US, Congress has oversight responsibilities that will be hard to do if they are not briefed. In addition, Senators fought to continue funding the IMF - I don't know whose provision that was, but it is similar to provisions Kerry fought to get into traded bills.

Though I wish he didn't write this, I hope this was to preserve the power he obviously thinks the President should have, rather than Obama actually being against this decent idea.

Obama will enforce anti-gay laws like DOMA and DADT while ignoring whatever he doesn't agree with.

Obama's cuteness is wearing thin.

"Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

<snip>

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361.html?hpid=topnews

they may sign an executive order to placate them until firm plans are in place for closing Gitmo. And civil liberties groups would prefer an executive order since it's easy to recind.