Obama issues “signing statement” rejecting budget cuts for “Czars”

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Trajan, Apr 15, 2011.

  1. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    froom hot air, hot off the press...

    I have to say, of all the Bush policies recycled by Obama, this one’s my favorite just because it’s such a gratuitous offense to his base. You can spin many of the others on expediency grounds — he had to ramp up the drone strikes in Pakistan to crack down on terrorists, he had to keep Gitmo military tribunals going because the Republicans tied his hands — but this one’s pretty much a pure no-apologies betrayal. The bad news: Legally, it’s highly dubious. The good news: It should provoke another classic what-happened-to-the-Barack-I-knew Andrew Sullivan lament.

    One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

    “The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”…


    In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.

    Remember, one of the big advantages of using “czars” is that they perform cabinet-type functions without being subjected to cabinet-type confirmation hearings. Which means, in this case, not only is he reserving his right to skirt congressional scrutiny of important appointees, he’s reserving his right to force Congress to pay for it by ignoring their own funding strictures. He’s been using signing statements for a long time now, but I’m not sure there’s ever been an example this egregious.

    President Obama Issues

    Wow: Obama issues “signing statement” rejecting budget cuts to White House “czars” « Hot Air
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,550
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,426
    And?
     
  3. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Shit, you beat me to it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ClosedCaption
    Online

    ClosedCaption Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    47,507
    Thanks Received:
    5,957
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,122
    You agree with signing statements or not?
     
  5. washamericom
    Offline

    washamericom Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,373
    Thanks Received:
    734
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,692
    this is heatin right up... i figured
     
  6. EriktheRed
    Offline

    EriktheRed Eh...

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,031
    Thanks Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    IL
    Ratings:
    +1,732
    Signing statements suck. Shrub got flak from those of us on the "other side" when it wasn't really fair because Clinton and other previous Presidents did it, too.

    Of course, Pres. Obama is getting flak over czars when other previous POTUS's also used them.

    So I guess it kinda evens out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2011
  7. percysunshine
    Online

    percysunshine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16,650
    Thanks Received:
    2,259
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Sty
    Ratings:
    +5,807
    Hitler did the same thing...no wait...maybe it was Stalin.
     
  8. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,457
    There is little doubt that Bush and Obama are the Czar Kings. Bush caught flack and Obama doesn't give a crap if he catches flack. Both of them are stupid. they have a cabinet that is where they should be getting their advise.

    For the record:

    Bush had 33 Czars in 8 years

    Obama has 37 in only 2 years....

    And all of these guys at $100,000 per year.......
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    wheres the outrage? :razz:
     

Share This Page