Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement

[PoliticalChic]

Well he's partially right but mostly wrong. He shouldn't ignore legislation that goes against the Constitution, he should veto it.

“Don't you miss the good old days of Bush's "unitary executive" presidency? The left got its panties in a twist every time Bush signed a bill and issued a signing statement listing his objections. They tried to outdo each other in outrage when talking about "dictatorship" and the like whenever these signing statements were published.

Sometimes it was even front page news in the New York Times and Washington Post. "Balance of Power!" "Unitary executive!" "Bush is Hitler - or Worse!"
American Thinker Blog: Obama signing statement on war funding bill: Left is curiously silent

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hEYyuNr4DAk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hEYyuNr4DAk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/seAR1S1Mjkc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/seAR1S1Mjkc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Sworn in on January 20th, he waited until March 11th to issue his first Signing Statement.
The White House - Press Office - Statement from the President on the signing of H.R. 1105

The left is "curiously silent" because thus far it is a single event and not (yet) a trend. That was a good graph that Maggie Mae posted. Puts it into a bit of context.

I thought it was an informative graph, but the context is unclear.

Did President Bush do something that showed he was more concerned with the direction the Congress was going? Was he therfore showing insight and forethought?

He clearly did not invent signing statements, nor have they been found to be illegal, so what do you glean form the volume of same?

My friend across the aisle claims someone else told him what to write, but remember they said the same about Ronald Reagan until his handwritten diaries were found.

And, there were other Obama signing statements:

Sworn in on January 20th, he waited until March 11th to issue his first Signing Statement.
The White House - Press Office - Statement from the President on the signing of H.R. 1105

The following refers to his Signing Statement of June 27th :
“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.”
Obama Issues Signing Statement On War Spending BIll

 

[Barb]

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

Watch your language, you're not speaking to your mother.

But I understand your rage, as I have punctured your argument, and slapped you around a bit.

Calm down, with practice, your understanding of both standard English, and poitical-speak will improve.

Kind of juvenile attempt to change the subject when you lose, as "...already want him to fail..."


And just to help you understand what just took place, here is the review: Your attempted to find some wiggle room in President Obama's promise not to use signing statements to excuse his use of signing statements.

You were shown that, based on standard English usage, this was disingenuous.

You showed that you were able to handle neither the truth, nor the criticism.

You are sent to your room without dessert.

Problem is, he didn't promise not to use them:

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attends a rally in Richmond. As president, he said, he would veto a bill he disagreed with. (By Alex Wong -- Getty Images)

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes' - washingtonpost.com

"[...] All three of the leading presidential contenders have suggested they would take a different approach than Bush: What's striking is that McCain appears perhaps even more radical than his Democratic rivals in adopting a seemingly ironclad refusal to issue signing statements. If he truly were to follow that approach, it would represent a sharp break in presidential practice, according to lawyers on both sides of the ideological divide.

Responding to a questionnaire late last year by the Boston Globe, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) made clear their view that Bush has gone too far in issuing signing statements -- but that there are circumstances in which such statements are necessary.

'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," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives. [...]"

 

[PoliticalChic]

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

Watch your language, you're not speaking to your mother.

But I understand your rage, as I have punctured your argument, and slapped you around a bit.

Calm down, with practice, your understanding of both standard English, and poitical-speak will improve.

Kind of juvenile attempt to change the subject when you lose, as "...already want him to fail..."


And just to help you understand what just took place, here is the review: Your attempted to find some wiggle room in President Obama's promise not to use signing statements to excuse his use of signing statements.

You were shown that, based on standard English usage, this was disingenuous.

You showed that you were able to handle neither the truth, nor the criticism.

You are sent to your room without dessert.

Problem is, he didn't promise noot to use them:

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attends a rally in Richmond. As president, he said, he would veto a bill he disagreed with. (By Alex Wong -- Getty Images)

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes' - washingtonpost.com

"[...] All three of the leading presidential contenders have suggested they would take a different approach than Bush: What's striking is that McCain appears perhaps even more radical than his Democratic rivals in adopting a seemingly ironclad refusal to issue signing statements. If he truly were to follow that approach, it would represent a sharp break in presidential practice, according to lawyers on both sides of the ideological divide.

Responding to a questionnaire late last year by the Boston Globe, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) made clear their view that Bush has gone too far in issuing signing statements -- but that there are circumstances in which such statements are necessary.

'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," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives. [...]"[/FONT="Book Antiqua"]

Difficult argument for you to make, along the lines of "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes??"

Did you see the youtube that I posted where Senator Obama said exactly that?

Be serious.

 

[Barb]

Watch your language, you're not speaking to your mother.

But I understand your rage, as I have punctured your argument, and slapped you around a bit.

Calm down, with practice, your understanding of both standard English, and poitical-speak will improve.

Kind of juvenile attempt to change the subject when you lose, as "...already want him to fail..."


And just to help you understand what just took place, here is the review: Your attempted to find some wiggle room in President Obama's promise not to use signing statements to excuse his use of signing statements.

You were shown that, based on standard English usage, this was disingenuous.

You showed that you were able to handle neither the truth, nor the criticism.

You are sent to your room without dessert.

Problem is, he didn't promise noot to use them:

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attends a rally in Richmond. As president, he said, he would veto a bill he disagreed with. (By Alex Wong -- Getty Images)

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes' - washingtonpost.com

"[...] All three of the leading presidential contenders have suggested they would take a different approach than Bush: What's striking is that McCain appears perhaps even more radical than his Democratic rivals in adopting a seemingly ironclad refusal to issue signing statements. If he truly were to follow that approach, it would represent a sharp break in presidential practice, according to lawyers on both sides of the ideological divide.

Responding to a questionnaire late last year by the Boston Globe, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) made clear their view that Bush has gone too far in issuing signing statements -- but that there are circumstances in which such statements are necessary.

'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," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives. [...]"[/FONT="Book Antiqua"]

Difficult argument for you to make, along the lines of "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes??"

Did you see the youtube that I posted where Senator Obama said exactly that?

Be serious.

The qualifier: "To get your way." I don't see his signing as "to get his way" or to "do an end run around Congress" but to uphold his ability to meet his responsibility. I already admitted he should have vetoed it instead. Did you see my You Tube about what the reaction would be from the republicans if he did that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Problem is, he didn't promise noot to use them:

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attends a rally in Richmond. As president, he said, he would veto a bill he disagreed with. (By Alex Wong -- Getty Images)

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes' - washingtonpost.com

"[...] All three of the leading presidential contenders have suggested they would take a different approach than Bush: What's striking is that McCain appears perhaps even more radical than his Democratic rivals in adopting a seemingly ironclad refusal to issue signing statements. If he truly were to follow that approach, it would represent a sharp break in presidential practice, according to lawyers on both sides of the ideological divide.

Responding to a questionnaire late last year by the Boston Globe, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) made clear their view that Bush has gone too far in issuing signing statements -- but that there are circumstances in which such statements are necessary.

'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," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives. [...]"[/FONT="Book Antiqua"]

Difficult argument for you to make, along the lines of "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes??"

Did you see the youtube that I posted where Senator Obama said exactly that?

Be serious.

The qualifier: "To get your way." I don't see his signing as "to get his way" or to "do an end run around Congress" but to uphold his ability to meet his responsibility. I already admitted he should have vetoed it instead. Did you see my You Tube about what the reaction would be from the republicans if he did that?

Assuming that you have approached this question honestly, and that you have viewed both the youtube and post #22 in this thread, then you are free to have whatever opinion at which you have arrived.

 

[del]

Imagine my shock that Dems aren't zombie robots like the Republicans were with Bush.

imagine my surprise that obama seems to think george had some great ideas about running the country. change.........

The reality is that there is too much to just overturn. Ironically, "CHANGE" happened during the Bush Administration.

so he's just not up to the challenge, then.

bushIII- what great news

 

[Coyote]

I thought it was an informative graph, but the context is unclear.

To me, the context was in trend, and a drastic jump of 8.9 (Reagan) to to 58 (G.H. Bush) to 146 (GW Bush) with Clinton dropping down to 17.5 is ominous given an historically low number of signing statements preceding. In combination with Cheney's push for a "unitary executive" - it looks more like a way for the president to ignore laws passed by Congress. But...I am seeing why you are saying it's unclear - is it signing statements, individual challanges?

Did President Bush do something that showed he was more concerned with the direction the Congress was going? Was he therfore showing insight and forethought?

He clearly did not invent signing statements, nor have they been found to be illegal, so what do you glean form the volume of same?

My friend across the aisle claims someone else told him what to write, but remember they said the same about Ronald Reagan until his handwritten diaries were found.

From what I've read, Bush did not like to concern himself with details - he just wanted to "make it happen", and once convinced, make a quick decision and never go back from it. Whether he wrote them or not - I don't know. Cheney was the one with a powerful interest in the theory that a strong "unitary executive" was more important than a balance of powers or (as some have argued) the idea that our founders placed a greater share of power with Congress. As to being concerned with the direction Congress was going...that doesn't seem right because for most of his two terms he had a Congress that went along with much of his agenda. Contrast that with Clinton.

Signing statements aren't exactly illegal - but, at some point can they become so? For example - they allow the president to bypass any laws Congress passes...wouldn't that mean there is no effective check on presidential power? Someone pointed out to me that while signing statements aren't illegal, neither are they constitutional. According to what Wikipedia says there is no United States Constitutional provision, federal statute, or common-law principle that explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on it.

And, there were other Obama signing statements:

Sworn in on January 20th, he waited until March 11th to issue his first Signing Statement.
The White House - Press Office - Statement from the President on the signing of H.R. 1105

The following refers to his Signing Statement of June 27th :
&#8220;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.

Ok, so he has two?

How does that compare to Bush?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_(United_States)

George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements &#8212; for example, his signing statement attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.[12]

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges.[9][13] In the words of a New York Times commentary:

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.&#8221;
Obama Issues Signing Statement On War Spending BIll

I don't like signing statements at all nor do I like line item vetos. I think an overuse of them is not good and is an attempt to circumvent Congress. If Obama shows that same trend, I will be very disturbed and it will begin to look like a much larger trend developing in the presidency as a whole.

 

[Alan Partridge]

Watch your language, you're not speaking to your mother.

But I understand your rage, as I have punctured your argument, and slapped you around a bit.

Calm down, with practice, your understanding of both standard English, and poitical-speak will improve.

Kind of juvenile attempt to change the subject when you lose, as "...already want him to fail..."


And just to help you understand what just took place, here is the review: Your attempted to find some wiggle room in President Obama's promise not to use signing statements to excuse his use of signing statements.

You were shown that, based on standard English usage, this was disingenuous.

You showed that you were able to handle neither the truth, nor the criticism.

You are sent to your room without dessert.

wow, what is it with you guys here and my dead mother?

the only slapping around you do is on an hourly basis with your lady friend and her five sisters.

OK, he said yes, and then he clarified how he would use them. Not my fault that he's a politician and politicians are liars.

So technically, you were correct, he said yes to the question. Congrats.

What criticism? And I don't take criticism badly when I am either mistaken, or proved to be incorrect. the truth, on the other hand, in politics is Jello-esque.

But, the main issue is still that conservatives are bitter and on edge waiting for any moment that Obama to go against his statements, and it's sad, because he will, as he is a politician.

Damn, no desert. Oh well.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well he's partially right but mostly wrong. He shouldn't ignore legislation that goes against the Constitution, he should veto it. That being said, it's unconstitutional to dole out taxpayer money to the IMF and World Bank in the first place so there's nothing unconstitutional about restricting that aid. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with his role as commander-in-chief.

USAID is part of the Department of State, and every department reports to the President. It is within his power and responsibility to direct them to his will. He can shift them, make them, and split them up by executive order, and doesn't need the other two branches of government to approve. Organizing the bureaus through the departments is one way US Presidents exert authority and direct government. It sets the tone to the pitch he wants.

No where in the Constitution does it say that the executive branch may appropriate money for aid to other countries or international organizations. The Constitution does say in Article 1, Section 9:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..."

Since an executive order nor a signing statement is constitutional we can assume this is not what the founders meant by "Law," and that it was intended that the Congress must make these appropriations by passing the necessary legislation.

 

[MaggieMae]

imagine my surprise that obama seems to think george had some great ideas about running the country. change.........

The reality is that there is too much to just overturn. Ironically, "CHANGE" happened during the Bush Administration.

so he's just not up to the challenge, then.

bushIII- what great news

Most THINKING people realize that the door doesn't simply close.

 

[MaggieMae]

Watch your language, you're not speaking to your mother.

But I understand your rage, as I have punctured your argument, and slapped you around a bit.

Calm down, with practice, your understanding of both standard English, and poitical-speak will improve.

Kind of juvenile attempt to change the subject when you lose, as "...already want him to fail..."


And just to help you understand what just took place, here is the review: Your attempted to find some wiggle room in President Obama's promise not to use signing statements to excuse his use of signing statements.

You were shown that, based on standard English usage, this was disingenuous.

You showed that you were able to handle neither the truth, nor the criticism.

You are sent to your room without dessert.

wow, what is it with you guys here and my dead mother?

the only slapping around you do is on an hourly basis with your lady friend and her five sisters.

OK, he said yes, and then he clarified how he would use them. Not my fault that he's a politician and politicians are liars.

So technically, you were correct, he said yes to the question. Congrats.

What criticism? And I don't take criticism badly when I am either mistaken, or proved to be incorrect. the truth, on the other hand, in politics is Jello-esque.

But, the main issue is still that conservatives are bitter and on edge waiting for any moment that Obama to go against his statements, and it's sad, because he will, as he is a politician.

Damn, no desert. Oh well.

I like your style, Alan.

 

[del]

The reality is that there is too much to just overturn. Ironically, "CHANGE" happened during the Bush Administration.

so he's just not up to the challenge, then.

bushIII- what great news

Most THINKING people realize that the door doesn't simply close.

most smart people realize that all politicians are liars.

 

[Ravi]

so he's just not up to the challenge, then.

bushIII- what great news

Most THINKING people realize that the door doesn't simply close.

most smart people realize that all politicians are liars.

Well...except Hillary.