Dammit, Obama, we voted to get RID of an emperor, not make YOU one.

[Pab Sungenis]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/11/obama-issues-first-signing-statement/

Just days after issuing a directive that has the potential to limit the impact of his predecessor’s prolific use of presidential signing statements, President Obama issued his first statement setting forth his administration’s “constitutional concerns” with a federal law.

<snip>

In what may be a sign of potential turf battles to come between the White House and Capitol Hill, Obama states that the spending bill’s instructions to seek Congressional committee approval before spending or reallocating funds “are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement.”

Therefore, “spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval .”

Ummm...that's not the way it's supposed to work. The President is not the arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. The President APPROVES and ENFORCES the laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional.

If you've got those concerns, then have your Attorney General take it up to the Justices and get a ruling. Or just VETO the law.

Yeah, I trust this sort of things in your hands more than I did your predecessor's but I fear for the future if you allow this insane practice to continue under you. What will the next guy do? Especially if he has less scruples than even your predecessor.

This precedent can't be allowed to stand. Mr. President, withdraw your signing statement. If not, then Congress should immediately sue to force your compliance with the bill you just signed.

[CountAllVotes]

1. this is what happens

when you hand someone a mandate. Like it or not, we now have "change we can believe in". :eyes:

[4lbs]

4. Has he done anything you liked, or do you plan to only complain?

n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Oh, I like a lot of what he's done.

Stem cell research.
The stimulus plan.
The priorities in the FY2010 budget.
The office on women's issues. (Okay, that's Michelle, but I'm sure he signed off.)
The order to close Gitmo.
Setting the date for the end of the war.

It's been one of the most productive starts to an Administration since 1933. But continuing to issue signing statements is VERY bad. Not so much for him as for the next guy. We can't let it stand.

[CountAllVotes]

14. I like a lot of what he has done as well

however, we cannot, will not and shall not allow him to take the mandate given to him to force things that shouldn't be forced down our throats!

:kick:

[4lbs]

27. Ok, then, I apologize for my comment above. However, read the signing statement entirely and you'll

see where President Obama expresses concern that portions of the Omnibus bill give Congress overreaching power to block the President and his cabinet heads in duties expressly given to the executive branch in the US Constitution.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. If Congress has a problem with it, they can also take it up with the Supreme Court

[Pab Sungenis]

3. And as I said

they should. I'd even go so far as to say "must."

[Hippo_Tron]

5. I think they should as well, I would also venture to say that they will lose

Congress has the power to make laws. It does not and never has had the power to assign its committees to appropriate funds after the laws are passed.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. Congress has the power of the purse.

They decide what is appropriated how. If they intended for the President to have discretion they would give it.

Any way, it's for the Court to decide, not a President.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Congress has the power to pass laws telling the executive branch how to distribute funds

If they want something appropriated a certain way then they write it into the law and the executive does not have the power to do it any other way. However, the constitution does not give Congress the power to make the executive get approval for appropriations ex post facto. It is a violation of the separation of powers to give themselves any authority in the distribution of appropriated funds.

[AZ Criminal JD]

12. No they can't

They would not have standing. Obama signed the bill which is what Congress requested.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Executive actions are subject to judicial review

Obama signed the bill and then made it clear he will ignore the part that says he has to get committee authorization. When he does something without getting the authorization congress, or anyone else for that matter, can take it to court.

[RollWithIt]

6. It's actually a very sound argument.... Essentially the problem is earmark stacking....

Here's a great example.

Senator A includes 6 billion in funding for infrastructure nationally.

Lets say its for high speed rail road lines. But the allocation isn't actually decided. All it says is future spending. The Bill Passes. No actual plans to spend the money except to say that Committee B gets to pick which projects are viable and which are not. AFTER ITS PASSED. The states all provide plans for projects they want and then Committee B decides where the money goes. Well there lies the rub, invariably Committee B is chaired by Senator A, the same Senator A who called for the original allocation of 6 billion! So if you're not on that committee or aren't closely allied with one, you have little hope of getting your project built even if your plan is far superior to Senator A's state plan. AND, there are no votes on it outside of that committee.

It's a real legal concern.

[backscatter712]

9. In other words, Obama's using signing statements in the way they've historically been used.

Historically, presidents have used signing statements to clarify their interpretation of a bill's wording, and their interpretation of how it fits into existing law, and give a heads-up as to how the bill will executed and enforced. They're also used so the President can express Constitutional concerns (like in this example of how he thinks Congress may have stepped outside of their legal authority.)

This is quite different from Bush's use of signing statements to directly contradict legislation without vetoing it, and to create law outside of the normal Constitutional process and without approval of Congress. Very unconstitutional.

Congress is more than welcome to go to the courts if they disagree.

[AZ Criminal JD]

13. Congress can't. No standing.

[RollWithIt]

16. Actually they can, they most certainly do have standing....

And plenty of cases have gone to the Supreme Court that were initiated by the Congress. Though it is the Executive raising the issue on this particular one. If that is what you meant.

[AZ Criminal JD]

28. They have no standing to challenge the President after he has signed the bill

They or someone who has been injured might have standing if the President later takes actions based on his signing statement.

[RollWithIt]

19. Exactly...nt

[ncteechur]

26. If Congress specifies in the bill how funds are to be used then I don't think they are

subject to executive review. However, if Congress simply said that they have to be consulted before funds can be spent, that is wrong. Congress cannot within a law make the executive branch subservient to Congress.

This is TOTALLY different from a signing statement.

[Captain Hilts]

11. It's Obama's successor I don't trust with these powers. This is not cool. nt

[RollWithIt]

18. He isn't using any "powers", he's simply providing a standard signing statement expressing concern

Historically, that is how signing statements were always used. To express concerns to the Judicial Branch. That is all he is doing. Bush used the statements to actually change parts of some bills, Obama is not doing that.

[Captain Hilts]

20. I'll defer to your judgement on this for a while. Thanks. nt

[mkultra]

32. uh, Constitution?

which gives teh executive authority over specific departments. Congress needs to amend the constitution if they intend to interfere with this.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. I have to defend Obama on this. All three branches have an interpretive role

The President has the role of interpreting the Constitution. So does Congress. The courts are the Supreme arbiter but every government functionary is supposed to preserve and protect the Constitution which is often an interpretive task. (And, of course, the courts are the final judges of what a law says, over even the authors of the law--the legislature.)

For instance, say Congress outlaws flag-burning in one part of a big budget and provides funds that must be spent pursuing the crime of flag burning.

The President signs the bill, rather than shutting down the government, but makes a signing statement that since the flag burning thing is, in the view of his administration, unconstitutional he will not be spending the money set aside for that and will generally not take it seriously. If he thinks it is unconstututional he has a duty to NOT implement it.

If the courts uphold the law then the executive's opinion will have been over-ruled. But until that happens you have congress interpreting the Constitution by passing a law (an act which presumes its constitutionality) and the Executive interpreting the Constitution by deciding whether it can implment/enforce the law. If Congress ordered the President to institute torture and over-rode a veto that STILL does not make torture Constitutional. The President can say, sorry... this is unconstitutional and I will not do it.

The President is not over-ruling Congress, he is disagreeing with Congress on the propriety of the measure.

So the interpretations of the two branches are at odds and the courts must get involved.

The executive doesn't need to bow to Congress' interpretation and visa versa. A signing statement does not have the force as law, of course. But neither should an unconstitutional law.

90% of Constitutional interpretation is done within the executive branch in thousands of little decisions. The courts can over-rule those decisions but that does not mean that the executive can not act on matters that have not been specifically adjudicated That would be crazy. Literally nothing would get done.

[yodermon]

17. Good God. Signing statements have no legal weight. By fucking DEFINITION.

They are OPINIONS.
The are not EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

Shrub's were especially vile because they exposed his dictatorial nature. But the simple *issuance* of them wasn't illegal.

Neither are these.

And if a president were intending to follow through and actually *break the law* s/he just signed, it would be really stupid to telegraph exactly how you're gonna break it.

Until Obama or anyone in the Executive acts on them, they are just words.

[BzaDem]

23. I highly doubt that Obama is going to consult with committee chairmen when he doesn't have to.

You may call that "breaking the law," but Obama is probably going to do it routinely since the law is BS. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to enact law by a vote of both houses, not by a vote of an arbitrary committee chairman.

[ProSense]

22. "Congress should immediately sue to force your compliance with the bill you just signed." What?

Do you know what you're talking about? The problem with Bush is that he believed signing statements were legal documents. They are not legal documents, they're opinions. The ABA review and recommendation resulting from Bush's abuses stated that clearly:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the
clear intent of Congress

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President, if he believes that any provision of a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted, to communicate such concerns to Congress prior to passage;

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President to confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose and significance of bills presented by Congress, and if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional, to veto the bill in accordance with Art

more

Did Obama break the law? Is he planning to? He issued a signing statement expressing his opinion. Clinton issued about 140 signing statements. I'm not worried that Obama is going to abuse the statements in the way that Bush did.

Obama instructs his administration not to rely on Bush’s signing statements.

[Danger Mouse]

24. So now the president isn't allowed to issue signing statements?

[4lbs]

25. Read the entire text of the signing statement. President Obama feels that some of the language

in the Omnibus bill lets the leglislative branch encroach on the executive branch's duties in violation of the US Constitution.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/03/11/bosigningstatement0311.pdf


First, he feels that it lets Congress direct the President on how to engage in foreign treaties and negotiations. That power is expressly reserved for the President, the executive branch, and not Congress, in the US Constitution.

Normally, the US Senate only ratifies treaties that the President engages in, AFTER they are signed. However, this bill now allows Congress to take part in and possibly obstruct each part of the treaty process, even preventing the President from engaging in talks in the first place.


Second, he feels that the Omnibus bill now gives Congressional committees express authority to direct monies in their area of expertise, instead of just the cabinet heads of those departments.

For example, the Senate Armed Services Committee would be able to not only allow additional monies, but now can direct where those monies go. Before, it would be the heads of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Foreign Affairs, or the President, that determined how the monies were spent once the Congressional committees approved the budget funds.

[scheming daemons]

29. This OP is an epic fail

...

[mkultra]

30. Actually, hes pointing out that congress is trying to contradict the constitution

Which provides the executive with authority to control specific departments. It does not give the congress these rights which they seem to be trying to posses.


I think you missed the bus back to bullshit land.

[SpartanDem]

37. Another poutrage fire extinguished

[jefferson_dem]

31. Ya! President Obama drafts one signing statement based on sound reasoning...

rooted in a concern for constitutionally-required separation of powers.

Surely that means he's just like the Chimp-in-Chief. :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

33. The task, of protecting the prerogatives of Congress, falls to Congress, not to the President:

under our system there ought to be some tension between the branches, and it is a good thing if each struggles somewhat to protect its own turf

A certain amount of our grief during the Bush years came from the failure of Congress to stand against the President's power grabs: Congress has the means, to prevent such power grabs, if it chooses to insist upon its rights -- and for the future good of our political system, I think one can hold that both some compromise and some principled refusal to compromise can be good for our civic health

Bush and the Republican Congress badly poisoned our system, and restoring it to good working order may require some sweaty exercise

[discopants]

34. complete transparency. it is posted on whitehouse.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-the-signing-of-HR-1105/

[NYC Liberal]

35. Talk about ignorant of what signing statements are, and their history.

Unlike Bush, Obama is not trying to make up his own laws, or completely ignore them altogether. He is using the signing statement as has been used by many, many presidents before Captain Fuckwit took control: to make a statement about how he, as the Constitutional enforcer of the law, will carry out his duty of doing just that.

[No Elephants]

36. The SCOTUS is the FINAL arbiter, yes. But his oath of office is

" "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How does keep his oath without trying to figure out what the Constitution actually says and means, at least as to things about which the SCOTUS has yet to decide?