On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'

[Khaotic]

The Washington Post has an article today w/ the following headline:

"On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html

While we know that if Grandpa got in the White House he would find some other way to exploit the accumulation of executive powers inherited from the Bush Administration, we haven't talked a lot about what Obama or Hillary would do w/ those powers.

The New York Times (who endorsed Hillary) ran the following headline back in October in regard to Bush's successor rolling back the executive powers accumulated during the Bush administration:

"Clinton Plans to Consider Giving Up Some Powers"

Hillary hasn't gotten much into the weeds about this, I recall Obama making some comments about it, especially signing statements.

He has said the reasons signing statements have rightfully received a bad wrap is because they're not used as they were designed to be used, which is to clearify something in a bill as in its verbage, not to change the law or its impact.

Basically, I gleen from this that Obama would reserve the right to use signing statements to clarify a law, which is something that could become very rare if he succeeds in his quest to simplify the legal ease in bills. I recall that he has stated that the language used in bills are too hard to understand and that his goal is to require Congress to cut out the complicated language.

If he were successful with that then his need to use signing statements would be non-existant.

At least he's addressed signing statements, as Hillary has to some extent as well. The Washington Post article outlines some of both Obama's and Hillary's positions on it.

Unlike McCain who simply lies and distances himself by saying he won't have any.

Thoughts?

Other references:

Obama supporter blog on Exec Powers
http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=492

New York Times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/us/politics/24dems.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Boston Globe article on Exec Powers (Obama)
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

Boston Glove article on Exec Powers (Hillary)
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ClintonQA/

[kikiek]

1. Washington Post article outlines the reasons Obama and Clinton would leave the provision. It

is certainly for reasons different than what Bush has used them for. But Bush has abused all the powers of the presidency. The problem is if we get another Bush in someday, and they use them again. But when our Democratic candidates say they are needed to protect the Constitution I believe them. I would be for leaving them in, and making sure there are no repeats in Bush like presidents.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. There's nothing wrong with signing statements, per se.

It's when you use the signing statement to express your intentions of not following the law you just signed that they become a problem.