I did not vote to throw out Bush so a fucking Democrat would issue SIGNING STATEMENTS! Did you?

[Faryn Balyncd]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123688875576610955.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[valerief]

1. Yawn. Turn on The Daily Show NOW! nt

[Hannah Bell]

127. because a comedian smacking down a shill is obviously more important

than the current officeholder doing what we chastised the previous on for doing.

[Minimus]

2. Yes I did.

[babylonsister]

3. Why yes, if he feels he needs to, I'll trust him. Why don't you? Agenda? nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

13. I worked for Obama because I like the idea of a constitutional republic.

(and, I actually believed the harsh charges we made regarding the Bush/Cheney/GOP trashing of the the constitution)

[babylonsister]

19. Maybe being so reactive isn't a great thing...

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month...

A SLAP IN THE SIGNING STATEMENT?

President Obama issued his first signing statement yesterday as he approved this year's omnibus appropriations legislation. Signing statements are issued by presidents signing legislation that identify provisions they interpret as unconstitutional and thus will not enforce, but don't feel are troublesome enough to veto an entire bill. President Bush, however, abused this privilege, using signing statements to make policy changes. Charlie Savage won a Pulitzer prize for his reporting on this story, and now brings his sights to bear on the new administration's practice.

Jon Henke calls foul, suggesting that Obama has contradicted campaign statements like, "We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." But after reading the administration's policy on signing statements, the first signing statement itself {PDF} and Savage's reporting, I do think that the new administration has been careful to strictly limit their exceptions to basic constitutional issues and not use the privilege to make policy. Compare Bush's signing statements, many of which revolved around ignoring congressional oversight in matters of war and torture, to Obama's perhaps most controversial exception, in which he accepts as merely advisory congressional ideas on re-allocating appropriated funds. It's clear, I think, that signing statements are both useful and capable of being abused, so each one should be scrutinized carefully by the press and the public.

Henke also goes on to criticize legislative bundling, the practice that puts the president in the position of not wanting to veto an entire bill for the sake of one unconstitutional provision. I think he vastly understates the time it would take for both the entire Congress and the president to approve each item in hugely complex federal legislation, or perhaps doesn't understand how much scrutiny these bills already undergo in committee. Why would we tolerate the current status quo, which is certainly not ideal? Well, this is the central government of a hugely rich and powerful country, and its policy-making does and should reflect the complexities of the United States. As a conservative, Henke doesn't feel that central government should be so complex -- and perhaps the idea of a paralyzed Congress appeals to him -- but that's a first principles debate for another day. The other issue is that in legislation like appropriations bills, which are tied into the overall budget process, it makes sense to consider these things as a whole after Congress has put them together.

-- Tim Fernholz

[EFerrari]

26. Maybe posting pr from Podesta's outfit is not an argument

let alone a rebuttal. Signing statements are not suddenly great because we can spin them.

[babylonsister]

54. How about the DOJ?

THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS

Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional, or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

[Faryn Balyncd]

47. It seems there is a simple constitutional proceedure for dealing with constitutional objections.....

A veto....accompanied by the explanation that once the allegedly unconstitutional provisions are removed, it will be signed.

Congress then has the option of making those changes, or over-riding the veto.

If the veto is over-ridden, and becomes law, including the allegedly unconstitutional provision(s), the executive may then announce his constitutional objections, act in accordance with his interpretation of the constitution, and let the courts decide.

That would seem to be the way to deal with genuine constitutional issues.

Issuing a signing statement in which 5 provisions are said to be unconstitutional, but declining to veto, does, in fact do an "end run" around Congress.

It becomes somewhat of a de facto line item veto.

And what does issuing a signing statement regarding 5 provisions this early in the term does bode for the idea that these will be rarely used?

[Canuckistanian]

151. Hear, hear!

Don't like the legislation? Veto it.

Simple concept to master, isn't it?

[BuyingThyme]

109. Total BS:

"Signing statements are issued by presidents signing legislation that identify provisions they interpret as unconstitutional and thus will not enforce, but don't feel are troublesome enough to veto an entire bill."

Where the hell did they get this load of crap?

[babylonsister]

119. Probably from here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS

[Hannah Bell]

125. "President Bush, however, abused this privilege" - who determines when it becomes "abuse," & if it

does, what's the remedy? did't seem to work with bush, wouldn't with obama either.

sauce for the goose, policy that woks no matte *who's* in.

that article = it's ok if it's our guy.

[Ken Burch]

16. You can't really defend removing whistleblower protection

Only Republicans want whistleblowers punished. We're supposed to be PRO-whistleblower.

There is no possible way that retribution against whistleblowers could ever be justified.

[babylonsister]

24. Can you provide a link that says that? Thanks. nt

[Ken Burch]

33. From the WSJ link in the OP(the second paragraph of the story)

"President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers."

[NoSheep]

37. Preventing punishment of whistleblowers...can you read?

[Ken Burch]

49. The part that was removed was the part that would PREVENT the punishment, from what I read

N/T.

[NoSheep]

77. yes. I understand that now. I still think this thing is very easy to understand if you consider

the forces that have been working against what is right and fair.

[Ken Burch]

52. And the part that prevents the punishment, as I read it, is what was removed.

It was not about removing a REQUIREMENT that whistleblowers be punished.

Whistleblowers should be guaranteed not to be punished, and the protection they had is what's being removed, as I read it.

[NoSheep]

78. Yes. You are correct. Please consider my comments as to why I feel you shouldn't worry

actually, you should be glad, that a grown up who understands the way these people lie and cheat is in control. I hope some of the things I've tried to explain further will be understood.

[Ken Burch]

84. Basically you just assume that we can unquestioningly trust that this won't be abused

Supporting the administration and opposing fascism(things I'm just as committed to as you)do NOT mean saying "it's ok when OUR guys do it".

For example, if somehow this administration were to decide to keep troops in Iraq or escalate that war(and there are still a lot of heavy-hitters in D.C. using the next year and a half to push for that)we would have a moral obligation to protest that just as passionately as we would if McCain had won and was doing the same thing. It would't be "no big deal" because it was a DEMOCRATIC administration deciding to keep the slaughter going.

This administration can be supported without "looking the other way" on secrecy issues. Secrecy never serves progressive or antifascist objectives.

[NoSheep]

88. No. That is not what I assume. Nope. I just know a lot that tells me they have a good reason.

Iran Contra. rememeber?

I understand your point....but with me, it isn't the case. I have no allegience to anyone if they are wroing or have no reason but I can see a clear reason here, and I do trust Obama, that is true, and he hasn't done a thing that has freaked me out. I think he understands he has to protect the truth from the people who can buy it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

83. Actually, what the linked article says is:

Mr. Obama objected to another provision that would cut the salary of any federal officials who interfere with a whistleblower's communications with Congress. The president declared that the provision would not prevent his administration from supervising, controlling or correcting "employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential."

What is in the actual signing statement:

Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.

Just to clarify the issue.

[Ken Burch]

85. And the reason we should see that as a preservation of the status quo is...?

We must NEVER say "it's ok when OUR guys do it".

[Lone_Star_Dem]

87. Actually, I'm not saying we, or anyone should do any such thing

I'm clarifying what was actually in the signing statement vs. what was being stated in the linked article by Sen. Charles E. Grassley.

If we're going to discuss the matter I thought it might be a good idea to discuss it without the interference of the Republicans spin.

[NoSheep]

38. Ken? Can you read? Comprehend?

[Ken Burch]

56. Yes. The sentence said that the part of the legislation that would protect whistleblowers

from punishment was what was removed, meaning that whistleblowers can still BE punished. How could you read that line otherwise.

[NoSheep]

81. I understand. That is correct. Please see my discussion of that below.

[NoSheep]

39. Okay Ken. Maybe I can't read...but I'm going to find out more..here's why:

Obama is a constitutional law scholar. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I suspect bullshit and I would hope that you, if you give a fuck about the good work this man is doing, will look into too BEFORE you start this crap.

[Ken Burch]

50. Well, please do more research. I'm not trying to stir up trouble.

I'm saying the part that prevents the punishment of whistleblowers, if it was removed, should not have been removed, because removing it means whistleblowers would STILL be punished. They should be guaranteed not to be punished.

[babylonsister]

43. You messed up. It's okay. I've done it. :) nt

[Ken Burch]

62. No, I didn't mess up. What Obama removed was whistleblower protection

We can assume no alternative form of whistleblower protection will be introduced in its place. There isn't a "post-partisan" position on whistleblowing, since those who are against it are always the right-wing secrecy freaks. There's never been a conservative use of whistleblowing against progressives.

I support President Obama, but this is something I'm worried about. We can't just assume "our side" can be trusted on hiding information from the public.

[NoSheep]

55. And look at this Ken:

Mr. Obama objected to another provision that would cut the salary of any federal officials who interfere with a whistle blower's communications with Congress. The president declared that the provision would not prevent his administration from supervising, controlling or correcting "employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential."

What the fuck is wrong with that? Why would anyone not see that he and his administration could spend the next 4 years defending themselves against misinformation generated by fascists who have no concern whatsoever for our country, only their own power? "Whistle blower" can also mean liar. And just who do you think has been doing the lying around here Ken? Some of your buddies? I just don't see why you don't get it.

[Ken Burch]

60. There is no such thing as a right-wing whisteblower.

Whistleblowing has never been used to stop anything progressive.

We should just have a clear standard: whistleblowers don't get punished. Whistleblowing is a public service act, and the right simply never uses it. They're the ones who WANT secrecy.

We don't need any of the "National Security State" Nixon/Reagan/Dubya stuff.

[NoSheep]

61. They are only using the WORD whistle blower (oh god help me)

Someone can SAY they are telling the truth even if they aren't. Their party can say..."well he's a whistle blower that the admin is trying to silence" even if he is lying. Don't you see that?

[Ken Burch]

65. You're assuming, again, that whistleblowing is now suddenly a right-wing plot

Nobody has done anything in this admin(and nobody did under Clinton or Carter, IIRC)that would be a case of a right-wing government employee abusing "whistleblowing" to sabotage something progressive. Whistleblowing is almost always a sincere at of public courage.
Since rightists are always obsessively pro-secrecy, it's not a tactic they use.

You're falling into the "it's ok if OUR guys do it" trap. We can't let ourselves go there.

[NoSheep]

67. This is all I can say...

You aren't thinking clearly about the differences between Obama and the fascists who've been in control of this country and our tax dollars.

"Whistle blower" can be a liar. " troops on peacekeeping missions" could be no different from those armies funded during the Iran Contra Scandal. See?

[Ken Burch]

70. I wasn't even talking about the troops on peacekeeping missions issue.

And, given that the other side always said "whistleblowers are liars and traitors" why should WE ever lower ourselves to the same rhetoric.

I want to protect those who need to stand up, in ANY administration, and tell the public things it needs to know.
Why do you assume that only Republican moles would be doing whistleblowing for the next four to eight years?
Things can always get weird, and we need protection for those who have the courage to defend the public interest if the weirdness
does come.

We can beat the fascists without using their methods.

[tonycinla]

90. 100% Correct!

The strange thing about Republican AND Democrats is they are all human beings,which means they are all susceptible to the weaknesses of human nature.As strange as this may seem to some all humans,regardless of any label attached to them(white,black,Asian,progressive ,whatever)are capable of all types of nefarious deeds.Keep your eyes wide open all the time and yes "trust" but CONSTANTLY verify.Read history!

[Ken Burch]

94. Thanks.

It's good to see that somebody get it here.

Secrecy doesn't protect us from right-wing attack.

[NoSheep]

69. And Oliver North was a "Hero" and Cheney was a "Patriot."

[Ken Burch]

71. Neither of them did anything remotely similar to whistleblowing.

Your take on this sacrifices the Sibel Edmonds' of the future in the name of the Ollies and Cheneys who won't even be part of the whistleblowing process.

President Obama is a good man, but the need to protect the public's right to information didn't end on January 20th.

[NoSheep]

74. Ken...what I'm saying is, Oliver North was a criminal, yet he was "called" a patriot.

and a hero. And a lot of people believed it. Because the media is owned by people that profit by the public believing it. These people own the truth now. Don't you understand that?

[Ken Burch]

82. I know all that. None of that makes a case against protecting whistleblowers.

We can't suddenly assume that, from here on in, anyone who "goes public" with something is part of a right-wing plot. Mostly it will be progressives doing it if anyone. If, G-d forbid, our new president were to sell out on closing Gitmo, or if he were to be persuaded to do the right-wing thing and actually go ahead with bombing Iran(a choice that could have no positive consequences)we will need whistleblowers to protect ourselves.

To defend the administration, we need to defend openness and oppose secrecy. Secrecy is mainly a tool of the repressive and reactive.

[NoSheep]

89. I am totally opposed to secrecy. AND LYING. And I think he is trying to protect his

administration from career liars.

[Ken Burch]

95. We're all against lying.

:eyes:

n/t.

[NoSheep]

103. I feel certain that we will see Obama is head and shoulders smarter than any of us

I really think so. I think he knows what he is doing and he is maintaining control over his admin's ability to keep the liar's at bay. I suppose you can just belly ache all night and you don't really want to know any other way of thinking about this. What do you know about Iran Contra or the PNAC? If you learn something about that, you may be able to see why I think he is trying to protect himself against liars.

[Hannah Bell]

126. i don't care if he's einstein reincarnate: laws, not men, smart or otherwise.

[NoSheep]

150. Who made the laws?........Perogies?

[Ken Burch]

76. I'm not sure who you mean by "my buddies"

I'm not in any sort of conspiracy or clique, so kindly refrain from making Benchleyesque insinuations about me. You've got no call to imply anything about me or to tar me with any sort of guilt by association. I speak for myself and myself alone.

[NoSheep]

86. One would assume, that from your seemingly immediate condemnation of something that

seems perfectly reasonable to a person who understands why these choices would be made, might indicate that you aren't really on board with the Democrat's agenda. I think what I have learned instead, is that you may not see how the powers that be have taken control of the truth to the point that an honest President, which I believe we have, might find it necessary to protect his adminiostration from the evil doings of insiders.

Do you remember the Iran Contra Scandal? To me, that is a perfect example of how people in our own government, who had their own agenda, went behind the back of the lawmakers, to fund a war that their business interests could profit from.

here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair

These people were criminals and there are people who call them patriots. They were lied to. One could easily use the term whistle blower to label anyone with an agenda. Anyone can say they are teling the truth. Escpecially if they have funding

[Ken Burch]

93. I am fully onboard with the Obama agenda

Don't question my loyalty to the party just because I disagree with you on secrecy issues.

And the Iran Contra scandal happened in a time in which whistleblowers were not protected, so what does it even have to do with your point? Oliver North didn't release information Reagan wanted kept secret, Oliver North defied the will of Congress to secretly provide aid to the murderous bandit army Reagan had invented in Nicaragua.

The Iran-Contra bastards were criminals. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. President Obama is a good man, but we can't always assume the Beltway insiders in his Cabinet can be trusted with secrecy.

The answer is as much openness as possible and constant mobilization from below to defend the Democratic victory and expand it, not suppression of information.

The tone you've taken in this exchange is a wee bit patronizing as well.

[NoSheep]

105. I maintain you are not considering the usefulness of what he has done

I think there is a case to be made and I've tried to explain it.

[NoSheep]

36. Ken....link? Hellooooooooooooo......

[EFerrari]

18. Right. Objecting to signing statements = Agenda.

We used to call it honoring the Constitution. That agenda.

[babylonsister]

22. Objecting to them when they (Bush) were trying to get around the

Constitution is one thing. I wasn't saying that, and you know it.

[EFerrari]

27. You made no such distinction.

"Why yes, if he feels he needs to, I'll trust him. Why don't you? Agenda?"

[babylonsister]

35. I was responding to the OP calling our president a fucking Democrat?

I figured there might be an agenda involved. Excuse me if that was okay with you.

[Faryn Balyncd]

149. I think my wording may have been sub-optimal....

[Tangerine LaBamba]

28. Signing statements are historically sound

The people who make noises about them now only know them because of how Chimpy Fucknuts abused the process - as he abused everything else. If they were conversant with how the legislative process works, they'd understand with even more horror how absolutely thuggish those GOPigs were as they squatted illegally in the Oval Office for those eight terrible years.

These are like the people honking about earmarks. They have no idea what earmarks are, or what their role is in the legislative drafting process, but they heard a word, and suddenly, it's an uproar.

This kind of ignorance reminds me of how badly our educational system has failed.

[babylonsister]

59. God forbid this is acknowledged by people who just want to be angry. nt

[Tangerine LaBamba]

73. I know, but

why are they angry?

I mean, WE FUCKING WON!

[babylonsister]

104. Ya got me!

I am so grateful for what we have now, after 8 long years. But let's complain some more? I think people were so used to doing that, they can't break their habit.

[blindpig]

138. Whatever floats your boat....

[Marrah_G]

132. Ugh...... gonna disagree with you on this one

We can't give Obama a pass on things just because he is a democrat. Not saying we need to turn on him, but pressuring him to not make the same mistakes as Bush is important. That is like saying Torture or spying is okay because we trust Obama to do it the "right" way. Things are supposed to be changing.

[Jakes Progress]

140. They're not supporting him unconditionally

because he is a Democrat. They are attacking any comment about his administration that is not pure praise because he is a rock god, dreamy, and soooooooo cool. They do not have a place in policy discussions. They gum up the works and make honest and substantive discussion difficult.

You are right. He is our so very welcome change from the craven and venal 8 years that just passed. He is going to do great things. But the purity league will not allow discussion of issues. It is all praise - 24/7 - hallelujah! - and damn the apostates.

Their number is dwindling down to a half dozen or so as serious minded DU'ers begin looking at issues and moving on past the election. They make up in volume and virtuous pomposity what they lack on numbers.

[natrat]

141. god blind faith is disgusting and ugly

[JackRiddler]

152. Democracy is about institutions, not personal trust. What's your agenda?

[bluestateguy]

4. Yes, I did

Signing statements have been used for over 200 years. They are constitutional so long as they are not abused.

And as long as Obama is the one issuing the signing statements, then he is not abusing this practice.

[Ken Burch]

20. "as long as Obama is the one issuing the signing statements, then he is not abusing this practice."?

You didn't REALLY just post that, did you?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I support President Obama, but it's not safe to EVER say "it's ok when OUR guy does it". No politician can be trusted with that kind of leeway.

Please reconsider your view on that.

[SusanaMontana41]

53. I agree

Is the USA Patriot Act more palatable now that President Obama is enforcing it?

Bad policies/practices hang around long after bad presidents leave office. Bush didn't set a precedent by using signing statements, but his abuse of them did.

Sign the bill, or veto the bill. Period.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

75. You're kidding, right?

You want to be familiar with the history and the purpose of Signing Statements before you paint such an erroneous, black-and-white portrait, which is shortchanging the legislative process.

You're right about how badly Bush abused the tool, along with everything else he touched. He didn't break Signing Statements, just as he didn't break our Constitution. Just goes to show how powerful an instrument it is.

But, seriously, you do want to learn about Signing Statements. They're a necessary and valid part of the whole governmental process.

[Ken Burch]

98. OK, I'm willing to do more research.

But it's always a bad thing when we say anything that gets close to the "it's ok when OUR guys do it" argument.

Obama is a good person, but we always need to keep the lines of information open. The people must be kept in the loop.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

100. It's about a legitimate governmental tool

being abused. Using the way that Chimpy Fucknuts did was not only a disservice to the vehicle itself, but also to us.

Obama will, I am certain, be judicious in his use of this historically valuable tool. It's not a question, not at all, of "it's ok if our guy does it." Not even close.

I think he's done a marvelous job so far of keeping things as transparent as possible, and I'm really enjoying it.

[Jakes Progress]

101. Yeah. Didn't you see Frost/Nixon

When the president does it it isn't illegal.

You have made a valid point. Whether the statement will effect the changes you fear might merit more research and clarification, but on this board any policy discussion is reduced to an attack by the purity police. I voted for President Obama too. I wanted him to be president. I didn't do it because he was dreamy or cool, but because he represented the party I prefer and the policies I prefer over the other candidates. But, his isn't perfect. He is a politician. He can mess up. If he has removed whistleblower protection, then he is wrong. Blind faith is what republicans use to justify their excesses. We are Democrats. Mess up, and I'll call you on it. We have never had a president or politician who was 100% right. I didn't expect President Obama to be either, so I will have my say. The idolators can chant all they want. They are becoming more and more irrelevant. Their purpose was concluded last November.

I will be following this story and will be sending a post to the President's office asking for clarification. If that is not forthcoming, I will ask some of my journalism friends to ask.

[Ken Burch]

111. Thanks for your involvement.

n/t.

[treestar]

160. It's not a question of trust

Abuses can be challenged. Even during Chimpy's term, his were.

The poster did not say it's OK when our guy does it, the poster said Obama was not likely to abuse it like Bush did. Meaning you should be chided for your post as much as you chided the poster above you.

Obama has proven he respects the rule of law over and over again. Just because Chimpy did a thing does not mean Obama will unless you subscribe to the absurd cynicism that all politicians equally corrupt.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

23. Well said...........

Chimpy Fucknuts abused the practice, and people who don't know the history of signing statements - in fact, who never even heard of a signing statement until it was revealed how Chimpy used the tool to circumvent Congress - are going to start honking about them.

Ignorance. Lack of information about how the government works.

These are the same know-nothings who honk about earmarks, without actually understanding the legislative process.

Our public educational system really has failed far too many people.

You should have to pass some kind of Government or Civics exam before you can be granted a driver's license.

[BuyingThyme]

110. Actually, anybody can issue a signing statement. Even you.

[ingac70]

5. Most Presidents issued signing statements at one time or another.

Bush abused it. Actually it has been abused since Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

[Hissyspit]

6. Not all signing statements are created equal.

[NoSheep]

92. I wish I could be so eloquent.

[Incitatus]

7. Actually, I kind of did. nt

[EFerrari]

8. No, I didn't. I voted for a president. I didn't sign on to be a member

of a support group.

[NoSheep]

30. No shit. Can I use that?

[TheDebbieDee]

9. Signing statements have been used by almost all Presidents.

* was the only one to use them as a disclaimer to state that the law he was signing into effect did not apply to him or his administration.

[Brazenly Liberal]

10. Yes, in fact, I did.

Signing statements have been used by most Presidents. When they are used sparingly and judiciously and with the intent of making a bill more rather than less in keeping with the Constitution, they are a good and valuable thing. This is how President Obama has said he will use them and unless and until he does otherwise, I have no complaint.

If everything Bush misused and abused was eliminated, there would be no Presidency left at all.

[MrSlayer]

11. Signing statements date back to President Monroe.

Chill a bit would you? It's was Bush's abuse of the statements that caused the problems, not the fact that they themselves exist. Chimp didn't invent them.

[FrenchieCat]

12. I voted FOR Barack Obama because I believe he has my best interest at heart.......

And please know the reasons I voted for Obama have nothing to do with signing statements....
cause I'm not stupid. :eyes:

[NoSheep]

14. .

[Luminous Animal]

15. I'm with you, Faryn.

A benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. It's not the mere act of issuing a signing statement that's the problem

It's when one is used in an attempt to undermine the intended meaning of the law that they become a problem.

[K Gardner]

21. You just called President Barack Obama "a fucking Democrat". Nice.

This place gets more juvenile and loathesome by the minute.

[Avalux]

25. Dude. Signing statements didn't start with Bush. Pay attention to what they say. n/t

[firedupdem]

29. Presidents use signing statements. Bush used them in an entirely

different way. Do some research. "a fucking Democrat". Jeez

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. I did not vote to throw out Bush so a fucking Democrat would SIGN BILLS INTO LAW! Did you?

BUSH SIGNED BILLS. THEREFORE SIGNING BILLS IS A BUSHIAN ATROCITY THE END.

[donheld]

32. I don't mind one bit

If it's done honestly and not with intent of breaking law then have at it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. Why did you let him stay with you in the first place?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Bush was not the first to issue signing statements.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=1999#q2

[Kittycat]

41. *Sigh* He never said, never use them. He said use them appropriately.

[gratuitous]

42. Yes

This has been another edition of short answers to simplistic questions.

[Starry Messenger]

44. Bush was termed out. n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

58. You're right...I guess it was 2004 that I voted to throw Bush out (& 1 reason was signing statements

[uppityperson]

156. oh you, details details details. Thank you. nt

[1]

45. "change we can believe in." what? you don't believe?

[NoSheep]

46. Okay. Look at this shit:

Mr. Obama objected to one provision that would bar funding for the deployment of U.S. troops to United Nations peacekeeping missions under foreign command without the president's advice that such involvement is in the national interest. "This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions," the president said. "Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority."

That is totally reasonable. Especially in an era where we have basically had a private army due to all the contractors doing the work the military SHOULD have been doing. If you don't understand that there is a shadow force operating
in this country, you are are sleeping. I don't think they're done either. It's important to me that Obama maintain control over who will and will not speak for this country now. We've had fascists abusing our resources in the guise of protecting our country. He damn well better make sure he signs off on the "forces" that are sent to do our bidding.

[FedUpWithIt All]

48. I don't like this at all...

:scared:

WTF

[NoSheep]

63. Take a step back and think about what is being said here. It is not what Ken is representing.

[flvegan]

51. Agreed, but he's still miles better than McCain.

[omega minimo]

162. Yeah, we definitely want the new Imperial Chief Unitary Executive to be our guy

[w4rma]

57. I just read his signing statements. This is how signing statements are supposed to be used.

He isn't arbitrarily ignoring and changing laws as Bush did. He isn't treating signing statements as a line-item veto.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

64. Since it appears to be lacking in this thread, a link to the actual statement.

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

Also, for your reading pleasure the full text of the statement.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 11, 2009

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1105, the "Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009." This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.

As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns.

* Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.
* United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.
* Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.
* Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
* Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 11, 2009.

[ClusterFreak]

66. Wasn't closing Guantanamo a signing statement?

:shrug:

[Hanse]

123. That was an executive order.

But I'm sure there's some whiny dick out there crying in his Wheaties because George Bush signed executive orders too.

[ClusterFreak]

134. You're right...

...it was an executive order.

Unfortunately you're probably also right about the 'whiny dick'.

[earth mom]

68. This is outrageous! It's NOT okay just because Obama does it!

I'm sick of how people are excusing shit like this! :grr:

[NoSheep]

72. I think it is important to think about this thing from a perspective of imagining how an enemy

of truth might frame the term "whistle blower" or "peacekeeping force". That's the key. Anyone can say Jane Doe is a whistle blower...but is she telling the truth? Who might gain from her charade? Haven't you seen the way these people work? And a peace keeping force could be a clandestinedly funded army...remember Iran Contra? Well that's where a lot of these fascists started playing together...Google it. You'll see why this is important.

[earth mom]

79. Why are you posting so much on this thread? Looks like damage control to me. nt

[NoSheep]

91. Because I care. And I think the OP doesn't understand what's going on.

And clearly, neither do you.

[earth mom]

102. Oh, I understand alright. Obama is going back on his word on more instances than this one.

You are the one that doesn't understand the implications of this or that Obama should not be following in *'s footsteps.

[NoSheep]

I feel I do. I don't think you are considering the wisdom of it.

[earth mom]

129. The wisdom of what?-Signing Statements? Faith Based Office? No Taxes on The Rich? War in Iraq STILL?

More Money to The Thiefs on Wall Street???!!! :wtf:

Is this a deja vu presidency or what? Because I'm not seeing much "hope" or "change"!

[NoSheep]

154. Peace "Earth Mom"...I hope you will consider your good fortune.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FudaFuda]

96. Obama explicitly SAID he would not use signing statements.

And because of that, yes this bothers me too. You can defend the history of signing statements all you want to diminish this issue, but when the question was put to candidate Obama he plainly stated that he would NOT use signing statements. So when he employs the signing statement tactic to modify legislation not even 2 months into office ... well yeah whatever it pisses me off a bit. I'm old enough and know better than to expect a politician to hold to every campaign promise s/he makes, but I understand the OP's irritation over this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc

[Lone_Star_Dem]

106. He also said:

"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," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html

Also, if you listen to the entire video you linked, when Obama clarifies what he's saying, he said he would not use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around congress. Not that he would not use them at all.

Do you feel that he has used them in such a manner in this case? If so I'm interested in hearing how you feel this signing statement is more than than an example of protecting the president's constitutional prerogatives?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

107. You didn't properly quote Obama

He said - watch the video and listen closely, since, you know, you posted it - that he would "not use signing statements in order to do an end run around Congress."

And, so far, he's been above-board in his use of the Signing Statement.

Your post was fatuous at best, and dishonest at the worst.

[blindpig]

142. What is a signing statement but an end run around Congress? n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

148. No, that's not at all what it is........

I urge you to read up on the history of Signing Statements. The historians can put it in a proper context and you'll get a whole lot more from them than you can on a message board.

Legislative drafting and how it works into the legislative process might be dry reading for some, but if you approach it as a great story with a stellar narrative arc, you'll have a great time.

[Schema Thing]

108. Not in the link you provided he didn't.

He said "we're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around congress" and the only thing he was "explicit" about was that he wouldn't use them in the manner of GW Bush, instead he would respect the constitutional separations of power.

[FudaFuda]

113. You're all picking out the words you want to hear

You're focusing only on the end when he says "won't use signing statements to do an end run around Congress" ... but the preceding remarks do not make room for your interpretation. It's clear form the totality of his answer that he considers the pracitce itself to be outside the president's power. It doesn't matter if other presidents have done them forever, he says in that video that it is outside the president's perogative. He says Congress' job is to pass legislation ... and the president can veto it, or he can sign it. That's exactly what he said. Nothing ambiguous about that - and nothing ambiguous about the flat "NO" he gave the questioner at the beginning.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me about the meaning of Obama's answer to that question, but I take it in its totality to be a repudiation of the practice, period. You're just parsing a sentence fragment to find your desired meaning. Who's being fatuous?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

114. And in regards to the link I provided from the WaPo

Where McCain, Clinton and Obama gave their stances on signing statements? By disregarding that are you not picking only what you want to hear?

Also, what exactly is it that you disagree with in this signing statement? The fact that it was issued at all, or the content of what it says?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

115. Merit of their use aside, Obama did not say he would not use signing statements

At least not during the General Election campaign. I remember Rachel Maddow giving props to McCain because he said he would not use them while Obama would only say he would not use them as Bush had done.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

116. Here's a link:

"First, though, it's time for a couple of underreported holy mackerel stories in today's news. First up, one thing that Constitution huggers like me, actually find sort of lovable about John McCain as compared with Barack Obama is McCain's insistence that he would not issue signing statements. Obama says he would if the need arose."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27297762/

Now one can argue about the constitutionality of signing statements, whether this signing statement is a genuine need, etc. But Obama did not rule out using them.

[FudaFuda]

117. I wasn't aware of any pre-election statement that he would.

And if he ever did say so, then I'm in the wrong.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

118. I posted the link from Rachel's show where she takes him to task for it: Airdate October 17, 2008

:)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

121. I provided you with a link from Feb. 25, 2008 where he says he would

He's been saying he would since the primaries, which I guess is why I wasn't overly surprised to see him use them.

I know Clinton also said she would when necessary, but I don't recall any of our other candidates stances on the issue.

[FudaFuda]

124. Got it. Thank you both. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

97. Bush didn't invent signing statements moran.

[proud patriot]

99. I had no conditions , just wanted Pukes out of Power

Now that the Dems have it , perhaps the
repuke party will be history . The pendulum
shall swing left , we are just at the gravitational
change . As the swing continues so shall the
left's agenda one step at a time .

"patience padawan" Obi Wan Kanobi

[Uzybone]

112. IMPEACH!!!!!

[babylonsister]

120. That's the spirit!

:fistbump:

[uppityperson]

157. CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!!!!!!!

[omega minimo]

122. W abused the Executive's "constitutional authority." Obama thinks the Emperor's New Clothes fit fine

Thanks to the strategerists -- including candidate senators who campaigned rather than do their duty to the Constitution -- Obama stepped into the Imperial Unitary Executive role.

Despite all warnings that this would happen and unbridled, illegitimate Powers would be inherited by WHOEVER holds the office.


"Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority."

[LynnTheDem]

128. ALL US presidents have issued signing statements. Fact. George W. bUsh

ABUSED signing statements & issued more than the total of all previous presidents.

The rightwingnut WSJ is real happy with such response from their bullshit article though, you betcha.

[emulatorloo]

130. Rupert Murdoch's WSJ? Doesn't that guy own some tv station called Fox News?

If I were you I would take the WSJ with a huge grain of salt.

[Faryn Balyncd]

131. "The upswing..signing statements during,,Reagan..coincides with..SAMUEL ALITO at Off. of Legal..."

The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito — then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#cite_note-10

^ Alito, Samuel (February 5, 1986). "Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law" (pdf). Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice. http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf

[jberryhill]

133. Please read this

The issue was not with Bush making "signing statements" - they are NORMAL.

The issue was with the CONTENT of Bush's signing statements, which were inconsistent with the substance of what he was signing.

[blindpig]

135. Signing statements are inherently anti-democratic.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

[redqueen]

136. Enjoy growing up and learning about how the world works.

Here's a hint, things usually don't go how you'd expect them to, or want them to. Especially when other people are involved.

Hopefully that'll help you out with the whole stunned outrage thing.

[Faryn Balyncd]

143. It was SOO.. childish of us to have been "outraged" when Repubs rolled over for Bush/Cheney, wasn't

...it?

[redqueen]

144. Are you saying Obama's signing statement makes him

exactly as bad Bush and Cheney?

Save it. I'm sparing myself the torture of reading your nonsense.

Enjoy your stay.

[Faryn Balyncd]

145. I am not saying anything of the sort. . . . . . . .

What I AM saying that process (as well as substance)matters.....

.... That dismissing arguments based on principle as being childish and not coming from an understanding of the "real world" is a slippery slope....

.... That we need to stick to our principles, and to apply our principles to ourselves as well as to our opponents....

.... That we might benefit from learning from the recent example of "conservatives" who were willing to compromise, twist, and even invert, virtually every one of their stated "values", in order to go along with their trusted leader, and conform to the latest revision of the party-line.







Trying to imply that I, or others who may believe we should apply our principles tp ourselves as we do to others, therefore are saying that Obama's signing statement makes him as bad as Bush/Cheney is a disingenuous method of distracting from the genuine beliefs we are expressing.






The world is not all black & white.

Some of us thought it was the right wing that is nuance-challenged....

Some of us thought that it was RW dittoheads, rather than progressives, who deal with friends - - - who may not be quite in lock-step with the latest revisionist thinking - - - with ominous comments like "Enjoy your stay."

[omega minimo]

153. so you're cool

with that whole suspended Constitution thingie?

[ProSense]

137. Dumb WSJ opinions

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.

[Faryn Balyncd]

139. "The ABA urges the President..if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional, to VETO

...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 Article...

http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/aba_final_signing_statements_recommendation-report_7-24-06.pdf

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

146. Get A Grip. Signing Statements Are Perfectly Sign.

It's when they are significantly abused that a problem occurs.

[rocktivity]

147. Signing statements are like tobasco sauce

They work best when used sparingly.

I don't believe it's Obama's intent to use them as an excuse to force his own agenda--like SOME presidents I can think of...

:headbang:
rocktivity

[backscatter712]

155. Obama's using signing statements the way they're supposed to be used.

Obama uses them to point out constitutional and legal issues with legislation, and to give Congress a heads-up as to how he will enforce a bill he signs into law. Obama has so far used them to point out parts of a law which may contradict other laws, violate the constitution, have ambiguities that he has to interpret, and so on. This is perfectly legal, and if Congress doesn't like it, they're free to go to court.

Lots of presidents have done this.

What Bush did with signing statements which was so onerous was to directly contradict legislation, with no constitutional or legal leg to stand on other than bad legal constructs like the Unitary Executive theory, and he used signing statements to create law in a way that illegally sidesteps Congress. I don't see Obama doing that.

[cooolandrew]

158. ...

...

[treestar]

159. All Presidents do signing statements, Chimp just abused them

When a law is passed, the next step is for the agency to adopt regulations. These are not legislation or anything new, they are just about carrying out the law. No law is perfect code, there is always interpretation involved. There is a comment period for the regulations but no votes of any kind. Signing statements are something like regulations - they are supposed to give you the administration's take on the law and how they will enforce it.

Likewise for Executive orders. These and signing statements don't give the Executive any power it did not have. Merely because * abused these to try to be a decider does not make them inherently wrong in themselves.

[originalpckelly]

161. Signing statements we can believe in?