Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement

[Alan Partridge]

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement

Four Reps. Sent Letter Saying He Sounded Like Bush When He Said He Would Ignore IMF, World Bank Aid Restrictions



(AP) Congressional Democrats warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he sounded too much like George W. Bush when he declared this summer that the White House can ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution.

In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrin ed" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Obama said he wouldn't allow the provisions to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

The rebuff was reminiscent of Bush, who issued a record number of "signing statements" while in office. The statements put Congress on notice that the administration didn't feel compelled to comply with provisions of legislation that it felt challenged the president's authority as commander in chief.

Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush for his reliance on the statements. Obama said he would use them sparingly and only if authorized by the attorney general.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president's assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the lawmakers wrote. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."

The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement - CBS News

 

[MaggieMae]

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement

Four Reps. Sent Letter Saying He Sounded Like Bush When He Said He Would Ignore IMF, World Bank Aid Restrictions



(AP) Congressional Democrats warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he sounded too much like George W. Bush when he declared this summer that the White House can ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution.

In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrin ed" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Obama said he wouldn't allow the provisions to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

The rebuff was reminiscent of Bush, who issued a record number of "signing statements" while in office. The statements put Congress on notice that the administration didn't feel compelled to comply with provisions of legislation that it felt challenged the president's authority as commander in chief.

Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush for his reliance on the statements. Obama said he would use them sparingly and only if authorized by the attorney general.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president's assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the lawmakers wrote. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."

The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement - CBS News

Signing statements have been used by previous presidents, but over-used in the Bush Administration. The reason the financial services committee doesn't like this particular one is that it removes some of THEIR power.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Bush signed over 800. Actually, he did so at the instruction of Cheney/Addington who read every single bill that reached the Oval Office for signature scrutinizing whether or not it would need a signing statement. Your puppet just did as he was told.

 

[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.

Bush signed over 800. Actually, he did so at the instruction of Cheney/Addington who read every single bill that reached the Oval Office for signature scrutinizing whether or not it would need a signing statement. Your puppet just did as he was told.

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

 

[Barb]

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement

Four Reps. Sent Letter Saying He Sounded Like Bush When He Said He Would Ignore IMF, World Bank Aid Restrictions



(AP) Congressional Democrats warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he sounded too much like George W. Bush when he declared this summer that the White House can ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution.

In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrin ed" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Obama said he wouldn't allow the provisions to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

The rebuff was reminiscent of Bush, who issued a record number of "signing statements" while in office. The statements put Congress on notice that the administration didn't feel compelled to comply with provisions of legislation that it felt challenged the president's authority as commander in chief.

Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush for his reliance on the statements. Obama said he would use them sparingly and only if authorized by the attorney general.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president's assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the lawmakers wrote. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."

The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement - CBS News

Isn't this a bit disingenuous? The WTO and IMF aren't members of congress, so he isn't ignoring them, he's ignoring the IMF and the WTO.
Two organizations that should be ignored where allocation of AID is concerned.

In fact, USAID should be removed from the State Department and made an independent department. Their bureaus need a little reorganization as well.
• Rearrange the grouping of functional bureaus of the Agency for International Development as follows: Global Health, Agriculture, and Humanitarian Assistance | Economic Growth and Trade | Democracy and Conflict.
The present grouping of the functional bureaus of USAID has one administrator is in charge of the Bureau of Global Health, separately; another controls the Bureaus of Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade; and another the Bureaus of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance. That arrangement leads to fragmentation of purpose and conflicting goals. The arrangement suggested rescales the focus of the administrators to complimentary tasks more easily integrated into coherent missions.

 

[Barb]

“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.

Bush signed over 800. Actually, he did so at the instruction of Cheney/Addington who read every single bill that reached the Oval Office for signature scrutinizing whether or not it would need a signing statement. Your puppet just did as he was told.

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

In clear and concise terms, the WTO and the IMF are not part of the US Government.

 

[Barb]

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

Bush used the signing statements to signal his refusal to recognize the will of Congress. This is something quite different. The WTO and the IMF are not part of the US Government in any way. The US Executive is in no way, shape, or Constitutional form bound by anything either international body has to say. It really is pretty simple.

 

[Caligirl]

American Thinker Blog: Obama signing statement on war funding bill: Left is curiously silent

the silence is because some of the left's agenda is actually getting through. I'll say this for americans, whatever side you are on if we are getting some of our goals met we take our knocks along with them without complaining.

In other words it was less the fact that Bush had signing statements (though it is wrong under any administration) and more the fact that that was just one more insult to add to the whole list.

 

[del]

Bush signed over 800. Actually, he did so at the instruction of Cheney/Addington who read every single bill that reached the Oval Office for signature scrutinizing whether or not it would need a signing statement. Your puppet just did as he was told.

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

In clear and concise terms, the WTO and the IMF are not part of the US Government.

in clear and concise terms, are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Barb]

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.

 

[Barb]

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

In clear and concise terms, the WTO and the IMF are not part of the US Government.

in clear and concise terms, are you fucking kidding me?

Nope, they're international organizations. Look it up.

 

[del]

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

Bush used the signing statements to signal his refusal to recognize the will of Congress. This is something quite different. The WTO and the IMF are not part of the US Government in any way. The US Executive is in no way, shape, or Constitutional form bound by anything either international body has to say. It really is pretty simple.

"In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund."


there is zero difference. obama is ignoring congress' desire to put restrictions on aid the us provides to the world bank amd the IMF, just as bush ignored congress' desire on a host of issue. at least the dems seem to be trying to do their job and act as a check on executive power-the repubs just rolled over.


have some more koolaid.

 

[Ravi]

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

 

[del]

In clear and concise terms, the WTO and the IMF are not part of the US Government.

in clear and concise terms, are you fucking kidding me?

Nope, they're international organizations. Look it up.

but CONGRESS isn't. CONGRESS passed a LAW placing restrictions on AID to the *international organizations*. obama told CONGRESS to go shit in their hats, just like bush used to.

is any of this sinking in yet?

 

[Alan Partridge]

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

It sounded like he said he wasn't going to use signing statemnets to do an end run around congress, not that he wouldn't use them. aparently, you missed what he actually said.

 

[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.........

 

[Caligirl]

I wonder what he learned when he got into office that changed his tune.

Do you think there actually are space aliens that landed in area 51?

 

[Barb]

in clear and concise terms, are you fucking kidding me?

Nope, they're international organizations. Look it up.

but CONGRESS isn't. CONGRESS passed a LAW placing restrictions on AID to the *international organizations*. obama told CONGRESS to go shit in their hats, just like bush used to.

is any of this sinking in yet?

"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."

That sounds reasonable to me, but in that case I agree with Kennedy in a way, he should have vetoed it and sent it back with his objections. It is within his discretion to deal with international organizations and other nations as he sees fit. Congress overstepped their bounds in this. Honestly, I did misread the part about the WTO and IMF. I thought he was telling them to shit in their hats. I wish he would.