President Obama Issues “Signing Statement”

[RockX]

President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill

In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.

Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.

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.

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.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...e-wont-abide-by-provision-in-budget-bill.html

Obama caught in another lie again.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

let me show you my shocked face.

 

[Canceled2]

We have all seen that Obama does wetf he wants to. This dangerous little asshole has to go in 2012!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Taking a page from Bush I see.

 

[Damocles]

Obama has a long track record of acting like Bush while saying he's doing something differently. Bush was Obama light.

 

[Canceled2]

Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?

A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”

Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.

Q: What kind of claims does Bush make in his signing statements that has people upset?

A: In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Presidential Signing Statements http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#ixzz1JhGoCEST

 

[tinfoil]

Why not? The left lets him do whatever he wants.

 

[apple0154]

Of course he's not going to abide by it. Here's an excerpt from the link.

(Excerpt)"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.” (End)

Congress has the gall to think it can dictate who the President can have as an advisor! Basically fire White House staff!

Maybe Congress will vote all White House staff have to be registered Republicans.

 

[Damocles]

Yes, it cites the exact same thing as Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, et al have used in signing statements. However, none of those four made a promise not to do it.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Congress has the gall to think it can dictate who the President can have as an advisor! Basically fire White House staff!

Umm considering the power to create those offices comes from Congress.... Yeah they kinda can vote to defund them.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

gitmo, signing statements, preemptive military action etc....under bush LOUD outrage constantly....under obama virtually no outrage, maybe some lip service that "i don't approve" and thats it

 

[apple0154]

Umm considering the power to create those offices comes from Congress.... Yeah they kinda can vote to defund them.

That's sounds outrageous. How many positions are we talking about?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

That's sounds outrageous. How many positions are we talking about?

That Congress had the power to create/defund? Pretty much all of them.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

gitmo, signing statements, preemptive military action etc....under bush LOUD outrage constantly....under obama virtually no outrage, maybe some lip service that "i don't approve" and thats it

I'd have to disagree. It may not be as widely reported, but I've seen significant outrage.

 

[NOVA]

like most Democrats....he thinks he is above the law.....

 

[Onceler]

Elections have consequences...

 

[apple0154]

That Congress had the power to create/defund? Pretty much all of them.

I was just thinking about those well-known cartoons concerning downsizing. They don't fire the employee. They just switch his office to a broom closet.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'd have to disagree. It may not be as widely reported, but I've seen significant outrage.

o'rly? i haven't....there is no way the level of outrage is the same as it was under bush. not even close.

let's use this site:

when is the last time a lib made a thread about gitmo? signing statements? ect.....

 

[Onceler]

o'rly? i haven't....there is no way the level of outrage is the same as it was under bush. not even close.

let's use this site:

when is the last time a lib made a thread about gitmo? signing statements? ect.....

How about digging up all of the threads that webbway started about signing statements under Bush?

 

[Bonestorm]

Presidents have pretty much always used signing statements and I don't see why Obama should use them just because GWB abused the shit out of them. Having said that, Obama's use of the signing statement in this instance is improper. The president cannot just use them to ignore bills that he signs. He can sign the bill and live with it or he can veto the bill and send it back to Congress. He can't sign a bill and ignore the restrictions in it.

Having said that, I don't care in this case because the czar issue is just stupid.