President Obama Issues “Signing Statement”

NigelTufnel said:
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.
Click to expand...

translation:

i will not call obama out for using signing statements when he criticized their use and promised to not use them because.... i worship at the altar of all things dem
 
Yurt said:
translation:

i will not call obama out for using signing statements when he criticized their use and promised to not use them because.... i worship at the altar of all things dem
Click to expand...


You groaned. LOLers.

You may want to check out what Obama actually said about signing statements. He criticized their abuse, not their use. But yes, this is an instance of abuse of signing statements. Obama's a hypocrite.

I just don't care though. Had Obama issued a signing statement that said that he would ignore Congress's restrictions on transferring prisoners from GITMO for trial in the United States or some other issue of actual significance maybe I would give a fuck, but "czars" don't move me much.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You groaned. LOLers.

You may want to check out what Obama actually said about signing statements. He criticized their abuse, not their use. But yes, this is an instance of abuse of signing statements. Obama's a hypocrite.

I just don't care though. Had Obama issued a signing statement that said that he would ignore Congress's restrictions on transferring prisoners from GITMO for trial in the United States or some other issue of actual significance maybe I would give a fuck, but "czars" don't move me much.
Click to expand...

are you claiming obama did not promise to NOT use signing statements?

i have read his statements....clearly you have not because you're too busy kissing his ass.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Piss off, Crawfish.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
 
NigelTufnel said:
Nothing in that video is inconsistent with the statement that I posted.
Click to expand...

so obama never promised to not use signing statements?

During his presidential campaign, Obama rejected the use of signing statements. He was asked at one rally: "when congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?" Obama gave a one-word reply: "Yes."[1]
Click to expand...

is the wiki quote untrue?
 
Yurt said:
so obama never promised to not use signing statements?



is the wiki quote untrue?
Click to expand...


Yes, the wikiquote is untrue based upon the very video you posted. Obama said a hell of a lot more than "yes." Moreover, there are numerous purposes for signing statements that are entirely uncontroversial, which Obama did not say he would forgo. His first several signing statements fall into the uncontroversial category. The latest signing statement, however, is the type that he said he would not issue, which is why I called it an abuse of the power above.

You see, Yurt, you try too hard and always go a step further than is necessary. The question and answer you posted are about a specific type of signing statement, not all signing statements whatsoever. So, while you are correct that Obama said he would not issue signing statements to subvert Congressional restrictions and to ignore the will of Congress and that Obama's signing statement concerning "czars" violated that promise, your claim that Obama said he would not issue any signing statements whatsoever is just plain incorrect.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes, the wikiquote is untrue based upon the very video you posted. Obama said a hell of a lot more than "yes." Moreover, there are numerous purposes for signing statements that are entirely uncontroversial, which Obama did not say he would forgo. His first several signing statements fall into the uncontroversial category. The latest signing statement, however, is the type that he said he would not issue, which is why I called it an abuse of the power above.

You see, Yurt, you try too hard and always go a step further than is necessary. The question and answer you posted are about a specific type of signing statement, not all signing statements whatsoever. So, while you are correct that Obama said he would not issue signing statements to subvert Congressional restrictions and to ignore the will of Congress and that Obama's signing statement concerning "czars" violated that promise, your claim that Obama said he would not issue any signing statements whatsoever is just plain incorrect.
Click to expand...

:lolup:

you're a lunatic nigel....
 
Let me try to help you out, Crawfish. Here is the text of Obama's first official "signing statement":

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." The Act provides a direct fiscal boost to help lift our Nation from the greatest economic crisis in our lifetimes and lay the foundation for further growth. This recovery plan will help to save or create as many as three to four million jobs by the end of 2010, the vast majority of them in the private sector. It will make the most significant investment in America's roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system. It will make investments to foster reform in education, double renewable energy while fostering efficiency in the use of our energy, and improve quality while bringing down costs in healthcare. Middle-class families will get tax cuts and the most vulnerable will get the largest increase in assistance in decades.

The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that failure to act quickly would lead to the disappearance of millions of more jobs and national unemployment rates that could be in the double digits. I want to thank the Congress for coming together around this hard-fought compromise. No one policy or program will solve the challenges we face right now, nor will this crisis recede in a short period of time. However, with this Act we begin the process of restoring the economy and making America a stronger and more prosperous Nation.

My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures to help ensure that every dollar spent in this historic legislation is spent wisely and for its intended purpose. The Federal Government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability. The legislation includes no earmarks. An oversight board will be charged with monitoring our progress as part of an unprecedented effort to root out waste and inefficiency. This board will be advised by experts—not just Government experts, not just politicians, but also citizens with years of expertise in management, economics, and accounting.

So much depends on what we do at this moment. This is not about the future of my Administration. This effort is about the future of our families and communities, our economy and our country. We are going to move forward carefully and transparently and as effectively as possible because so much is on the line. That is what we have already begun to do—drafting this plan with a level of openness for which the American people have asked and that this situation demands.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House,
February 17, 2009.
Click to expand...

That's a "signing statement" but there is nothing at all controversial about it and no one batted an eye when Obama issued it. Your position is that Obama violated his pledge to not issue signing statement to subvert Congressional intent and to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress by issuing this bland, generic "signing statement." It's silly.
 
apple0154 said:
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! :rofl:

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

maybe you haven't read the constitution in a while, but CONGRESS controls the purse strings of this country. they get to determine what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. the president has zero authority over how money is spent, even in his own office.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Let me try to help you out, Crawfish. Here is the text of Obama's first official "signing statement":



That's a "signing statement" but there is nothing at all controversial about it and no one batted an eye when Obama issued it. Your position is that Obama violated his pledge to not issue signing statement to subvert Congressional intent and to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress by issuing this bland, generic "signing statement." It's silly.
Click to expand...

It might be silly....but the fact is... Obama violated his pledge to not issue signing statement to subvert Congressional intent and to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress.

So try listening again....
 
bravo said:
It might be silly....but the fact is... Obama violated his pledge to not issue signing statement to subvert Congressional intent and to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress]
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know. I already said that. Yurt is claiming something different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top