Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Criticize him as you will, but he never claimed he wouldn't issue signing statements.I see it as yet another example of an amateur misstep. You don't make absolute promises during a campaign , and then blatantly disregard them less than 60 days after entering office.
Rep candidate is going to have a field day with an Obama clip saying that he wouldn't, and then time after time showing that he has.
Criticize him as you will, but he never claimed he wouldn't issue signing statements.I see it as yet another example of an amateur misstep. You don't make absolute promises during a campaign , and then blatantly disregard them less than 60 days after entering office.
Rep candidate is going to have a field day with an Obama clip saying that he wouldn't, and then time after time showing that he has.
I am not a fan of them but in this case, as in some of Dubya's, I think it was justified.
It is just ridiculous to not allow advisers. Presidents actually need advice on rare occasions...believe it or not.
Then-Sen. Obama said he would not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.
Buy a clue, dear. When something is chopped up into a sound bite it means it is editorialized.Criticize him as you will, but he never claimed he wouldn't issue signing statements.I see it as yet another example of an amateur misstep. You don't make absolute promises during a campaign , and then blatantly disregard them less than 60 days after entering office.
Rep candidate is going to have a field day with an Obama clip saying that he wouldn't, and then time after time showing that he has.
I am not a fan of them but in this case, as in some of Dubya's, I think it was justified.
It is just ridiculous to not allow advisers. Presidents actually need advice on rare occasions...believe it or not.
...
Then-Sen. Obama said he would not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
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.
Buy a clue, dear. When something is chopped up into a sound bite it means it is editorialized.Criticize him as you will, but he never claimed he wouldn't issue signing statements.
I am not a fan of them but in this case, as in some of Dubya's, I think it was justified.
It is just ridiculous to not allow advisers. Presidents actually need advice on rare occasions...believe it or not.
...
Here his the entire quote, via Boston.com
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
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.
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.
If what he did is illegal then the GOP should take it to court, plain and simple.
Remember this for the future. The rules of the constitution mean jack shit to these radical partisans. What're you gonna do? Impeach him? pfft. Like that means anything. You can't even get him to produce a birth certificate, or abide by judges calling his laws unconstitutional, or his out of control agencies ignoring court and legislative dictates and just keep on doing what they're doing a la the FCC and EPA.Yet another broken promise on the part of Obama, who has proven himself to be the most cynical president in history.
The Fierce Moral Imperative behind this particular one is the preservation of unconstitutional CZARS.
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.”
Therefore, the president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
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.
During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush 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.”
Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
President Obama Issues
Good for him. What kind of retarded fucktard would think that a president shouldn't have advisers?
Oh, wait...this was Republican sponsored.
Obama agreed to can those Czars. What kind of fucktard would agree to something and they put a note on the agreement saying he doesn't agree to it?
Oh yeah, we're talking about the Messiah.
Okay, fine. I took your original to mean that you thought he claimed he'd never use signing statements. Your complaint is valid, it was a naive thing to say. He should have qualified it with "unless Republicans do something completely partisan."Buy a clue, dear. When something is chopped up into a sound bite it means it is editorialized.
Here his the entire quote, via Boston.com
Yeah, he did exactly what he said he wouldn't.
The whole quote doesn't change the context one iota.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.
This guy has acted more like a Dictator than DA BOOOOOSH ever could have. Where are all those preachy Lefty Wingers? AWOL as usual i guess. Just like on his Libyan War. The Left are all hiding in their spider holes at this point. Can't trust them anymore.
And don't you love the contrast between all the moonbat Shrieking over the Patriot Act, and now they are perfectly copacetic to see the Feds have the power to Shut Down The Internet (the most effective way for citizens to communicate with each other and share information about our government that we have ever had).
Okay, fine. I took your original to mean that you thought he claimed he'd never use signing statements. Your complaint is valid, it was a naive thing to say. He should have qualified it with "unless Republicans do something completely partisan."Buy a clue, dear. When something is chopped up into a sound bite it means it is editorialized.
Here his the entire quote, via Boston.com
Yeah, he did exactly what he said he wouldn't.
The whole quote doesn't change the context one iota.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.
Yet another broken promise on the part of Obama, who has proven himself to be the most cynical president in history.
The Fierce Moral Imperative behind this particular one is the preservation of unconstitutional CZARS.
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.
Therefore, the president wrote, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.
In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we dont think its constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.
During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administrations uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the problem with the Bush 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.
Then-Sen. Obama said he would not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.
President Obama Issues
He promised to pull out before he came...and you believed him? Oh my! 
Ha...Ha... You people are priceless!
Yeah, if you guys can drum up a candidate that wasn't up Bush's tush on signing statements you may have a point.Okay, fine. I took your original to mean that you thought he claimed he'd never use signing statements. Your complaint is valid, it was a naive thing to say. He should have qualified it with "unless Republicans do something completely partisan."Yeah, he did exactly what he said he wouldn't.
The whole quote doesn't change the context one iota.
But then that would have nullified the political points he was trying to score by saying that.
So basically, he made an amateurish and noobish misstep. Now he's given the Republicans fodder for the '12 campaign.
Yeah, if you guys can drum up a candidate that wasn't up Bush's tush on signing statements you may have a point.Okay, fine. I took your original to mean that you thought he claimed he'd never use signing statements. Your complaint is valid, it was a naive thing to say. He should have qualified it with "unless Republicans do something completely partisan."
But then that would have nullified the political points he was trying to score by saying that.
So basically, he made an amateurish and noobish misstep. Now he's given the Republicans fodder for the '12 campaign.
What did Trump have to say about that?
Hey, Bush got re-elected. This will be a non-issue. Small potatoes.Yeah, if you guys can drum up a candidate that wasn't up Bush's tush on signing statements you may have a point.But then that would have nullified the political points he was trying to score by saying that.
So basically, he made an amateurish and noobish misstep. Now he's given the Republicans fodder for the '12 campaign.
What did Trump have to say about that?
I think Bush's signing statements were bullshit too.
But you can't have a candidate say "I'll never do one that completely negates the legislation" (even if the legislation was partisan BS), and then when he wins he goes and does exactly that.
Hey, Bush got re-elected. This will be a non-issue. Small potatoes.Yeah, if you guys can drum up a candidate that wasn't up Bush's tush on signing statements you may have a point.
What did Trump have to say about that?
I think Bush's signing statements were bullshit too.
But you can't have a candidate say "I'll never do one that completely negates the legislation" (even if the legislation was partisan BS), and then when he wins he goes and does exactly that.
But perhaps we should get Congress to outlaw signing statements.
Good point. He did, however, promise no nation building and IMO that broken promise did a lot more damage.Hey, Bush got re-elected. This will be a non-issue. Small potatoes.I think Bush's signing statements were bullshit too.
But you can't have a candidate say "I'll never do one that completely negates the legislation" (even if the legislation was partisan BS), and then when he wins he goes and does exactly that.
But perhaps we should get Congress to outlaw signing statements.
Bush never said he wouldn't do signing statements.
Good point. He did, however, promise no nation building and IMO that broken promise did a lot more damage.Hey, Bush got re-elected. This will be a non-issue. Small potatoes.
But perhaps we should get Congress to outlaw signing statements.
Bush never said he wouldn't do signing statements.
