Democrats irked by Obama signing statement

RockX

Banned
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.

Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's declaration in June that he doesn't have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn't allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of (Bush's) assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the Democrats wrote in their letter to Obama. "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.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTUXZ57-4A_UnsbDtQDPlUwZlbIQD99J2TQO0


LOL

What a weasel, here we have this SOB condemning Bush for doing it, and look who goes and does the same thing. Just another example that he was full of shit on every promise he made to to the idiots that voted for him
 
I don't think we should put the final decision on whether or not legislation violates the constitution with the president. The president should simply carry the act out, as is his responsibility, and encourage someone to challenge it in court. Giving a political figure power to interpret the constitution will pretty much never have good consequences, and if the president refuses to enforce something the non-partisan supreme court will never get to be heard on the issue.
 
I disagree with any president refusing to carry out laws, etc passed by congress.

Funny that the right only complains now.
 
I disagree with any president refusing to carry out laws, etc passed by congress.

Funny that the right only complains now.

I don't hear "the right" complaining.............yet

webbway just pointed out what a fuckin' hypocrite your messiah is.....
though I'm not surprised Obama is a liberal, lying, Democratic hypocrite.....I've know it for quite some time....an now you know it too....
 
by ignoring the 'law' that directs funds to the world bank and the IMF, President Obama would be in DIRECT violation of the constitution. ONLY Congress has direction of the purse strings of America. Wherever congress tells him to spend or not spend, he MUST abide by that law.

will Dems impeach him over that? not bloody likely from those spineless bitches.
 
by ignoring the 'law' that directs funds to the world bank and the IMF, President Obama would be in DIRECT violation of the constitution. ONLY Congress has direction of the purse strings of America. Wherever congress tells him to spend or not spend, he MUST abide by that law.

will Dems impeach him over that? not bloody likely from those spineless bitches.

did the republicans impeach Bush over the same thing? Those spineless bitches.


what now since we have determined that both parties in congress are spineless bitches?
 
did the republicans impeach Bush over the same thing? Those spineless bitches.


what now since we have determined that both parties in congress are spineless bitches?

i was about to ask, do you think I don't agree? both parties, spineless cocksuckers. neither one of them have the stones to uphold the constitution and law over their parties reputation.
 
i was about to ask, do you think I don't agree? both parties, spineless cocksuckers. neither one of them have the stones to uphold the constitution and law over their parties reputation.

Did the republicans make a statement about the Bush signing statements like some of the dems did in this article?

Perhaps a few of the dems are not totally spineless.
What about the reps?
 
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.

Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's declaration in June that he doesn't have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn't allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of (Bush's) assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the Democrats wrote in their letter to Obama. "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.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTUXZ57-4A_UnsbDtQDPlUwZlbIQD99J2TQO0


LOL

What a weasel, here we have this SOB condemning Bush for doing it, and look who goes and does the same thing. Just another example that he was full of shit on every promise he made to to the idiots that voted for him

You were doing fine till you had to say EVERY, why the exaggeration? And I still think that we idiots did the right thing, you think McCain would have been a better choice, I feel for you! I do, really.
 
by ignoring the 'law' that directs funds to the world bank and the IMF, President Obama would be in DIRECT violation of the constitution. ONLY Congress has direction of the purse strings of America. Wherever congress tells him to spend or not spend, he MUST abide by that law.

will Dems impeach him over that? not bloody likely from those spineless bitches.

dear gawd why should we, this isn't even close to what Bush did. You guys lowered the bar, don't lay the blame on us!
 
dear gawd why should we, this isn't even close to what Bush did. You guys lowered the bar, don't lay the blame on us!

try not lumping me in with the faux conservatives who backed bush. I was one of the ones calling for an investigation and, if necessary, impeachment.
 
Back
Top