The nonsensical spin on Obama's signing statement begins

[ProSense]

Obama’s Signing Statement Disappears Whistleblowers

The point in bold is supposedly responsible for the above:

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

Transparency doesn't mean that there is no longer such a thing as confidential information. That's ridiculous. The notion of disappearing whistleblowers assumes that Obama will break the law and direct his agencies to cover it up. What hogwash.

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.




edited typo

[CTyankee]

1. My understanding of the difference between Bush signing statements and other

presidents, such as Clinton, was that the others had no force of law but merely expressed the President's view and could be used later if the law's constitutionality were to be challenged. That is legitimate in my eyes. What Bush did was say, in his signing statements, that he would not enforce sections of the law he didn't want to. Very different thing entirely.

[geek tragedy]

4. Not really. The big difference is that Bush was hyper-aggressive

in asserting his ability to ignore Congress. He essentially said Congress can't tell me what to do about anything military-related, which directly contradicts the constitution's grant to Congress of the ability to

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Some stuff--like the legislative veto provisions--Presidents can and do ignore as a matter of course. As they should, because such provisions are unconstitutional.

[CTyankee]

62. But were signing statements ever so evilly interpreted before?

If Bush's intent was outright circumvention of the law, that seems to be a big difference...and, of course, as you point out circumvention of the Constitution itself. Therein lies the outrage.

[geek tragedy]

2. He said "I can forbid officials from Plame-like leaks."

Does any rational person doubt that he can do this?

There is a tension between (A) the executive protecting documents that should not see the light of day and (B) whistleblowers trying to shed light on illegal practices. There is no perfect way to resolve it.

[BuyingThyme]

32. Plame-like leaks are already illegal.

[geek tragedy]

42. What is a 'Plame-like leak?'

One that hurts national security? One that gets US agents killed? One that helps the enemies of the United States?

[BuyingThyme]

59. One illegally committed by people like Dick Cheney for political purposes.

[geek tragedy]

61. That gets us back to the whole problem of

how we determine what the purpose was.

[babylonsister]

3. I stopped reading that site after I saw that article.

It's as if they can't get past the * years and have to always be on the attack despite not having a shred of evidence on more than one occasion. Too much for me.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Obama is making it abundantly clear that he wants to cover up the crimes of the * years.

He's made that clear on several occasions now, beginning back before he was even elected. He's the one who can't get us past the * years.

[smiley_glad_hands]

5. Whether or not you want to admit it (after Bush who abused the office)

the executive is its own branch of government. The president has to be ceo of the bureaucracy for govt to work effectively.

What happens when the bush moles start to pop their heads up? Why would President Obama want to hamstring himself as ceo?

Whistleblowers got their message out eventually during bush, thats one of the reasons we know how much he sucked as president.

[Spazito]

6. Yep, it sure has....

It is if signing statements did NOT exist until bush and, therefore, they are evil, subversive, (use any other hyperbolic word here). Some of the spinning is out of ignorance of history, some is due to a sense of hyper-vigilance due to the egregious actions of the bush cabal and some is deliberate. I find the deliberate ones to be most.....enlightening, lol.

[BuyingThyme]

7. One question: If whistle-blowers are not sharing confidential information,

do they exist?

[ProSense]

8. Yeah,

like whistleblowers are sending e-mail and copying their supervisors.

What about traitors? Do they exist?

[BuyingThyme]

9. Not if they're exposing crimes.

One takes an oath to the Constitution, NEVER to an office or an office holder.

[geek tragedy]

12. So long as it's a real crime, like the FISA stuff was.

But, we don't want to give all the Bush sleeper cells the authority to leak at will either.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Obama supports the FISA crimes, unfortunately. He's no fan of the Constitution.

As for leaks, I'm pretty much all for 'em at this point.

[geek tragedy]

16. So, you favor outing every single CIA operative?

Leaking every detail about how we track overseas communications of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

Details of our operations inside Afghanistan?

[BuyingThyme]

20. Oh, hell yes. Those are the secrets that got us here.

Those are the secrets that gave us 9/11. Yes, please. All of 'em. Out now.

(Not the operatives.)

[geek tragedy]

24. Okay. That's a mature position to have.

:sarcasm:

[BuyingThyme]

29. Yes, we need to know what happened.

The government does not have the right to keep this information from us. They only do so because they do not believe in democratic rule or even shared power. They believe in unitary executive.

[geek tragedy]

36. So, we should let AQ know how we're monitoring their communications

in Afghanistan?

We should let them know who our agents and informants are?

[BuyingThyme]

38. If you know of some al Qaeda dudes communicating somewhere,

go and arrest them. Your "intelligence" isn't worth shit. It sure isn't worth burning the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

39. How is it 'burning the Constitution' to not let AQ

know how we're spying on them?

[BuyingThyme]

41. Because they, like you, use al Qaeda as an excuse for secret government.

[geek tragedy]

43. You have proof of this, besides some video

about how no plane hit the Pentagon?

[BuyingThyme]

44. You're unaware of all of the spying, torture, renditioning, holocaust that has

been committed in the name of fighting al Qaeda?

[geek tragedy]

46. Does AQ exist? And, big YUCK on the 'holocaust' usage. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

48. Al Qaeda is a tiny group of people with a video camera.

Holocaust is what happened in Iraq in the name of fighting that tiny group of people with the video camera.

[geek tragedy]

49. AQ is in Afghanistan, and they killed 3000 people where I live.

So, I tend to disagree with your factual assumptions, as do the vast majority of Americans.

[BuyingThyme]

50. If al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, go arrest them.

Don't murder another million people and use other murder victims as your excuse.

[geek tragedy]

52. You don't arrest armed militias in the mountains.

And Obama is withdrawing us from Iraq.

[BuyingThyme]

54. Obama is not withdrawing us from Iraq.

And arresting militias in the mountains is a much better option than invading a nation. Luckily, al Qaeda doesn't seem to have any militias.

[geek tragedy]

55. You must not have read the news.

And, how do you propose to arrest organized bands of hardened fighters in the mountains that have RPG's and machine guns without using military force?

[BuyingThyme]

57. Obama has announced that he is staying in Iraq for almost another three years.

At least.

Al Qaeda isn't an army with RPGs and machine guns. It's a tiny group of guys with a video camera. The guys you're referring to are trying to run Afghanistan, not commit terrorism against the United States.

[geek tragedy]

60. It's a gradual withdrawal. Slower than many would like, but

it's still a withdrawal.

Also, in Afghanistan you have AQ, Taliban, and tribal clans all working together.

[BuyingThyme]

64. It's not a withdrawal. Not at all. It's a big, stinkin' lie.

In Afghanistan we have two groups of people fighting over a country. Just because the name al Qaeda gets applied to some of those people does not mean that they're any more a threat to us than the others.

[11 Bravo]

72. You both make good points. Now, get a fucking room,

hash this out between yourselves, and give us back some much needed bandwidth.

[BuyingThyme]

73. You don't seem to understand this whole DU thing.

[ProSense]

17. "As for leaks, I'm pretty much all for 'em at this point."

Free Karl Rove!

Free Dick Cheney!


Good grief

[geek tragedy]

19. Scooter Libby was railroaded!!! n/t

[BuyingThyme]

21. That's not what I mean by leaks.

[ProSense]

26. How convenient.

It's a leak!

[BuyingThyme]

28. Great. Now you can pretend you think I'm anti urinal.

[geek tragedy]

11. Should we allow stuff like the Plame and AIPAC acts of espionage?

The difference between a whistleblower and a dual-loyalty traitor may be in the eye of the beholder.

[BuyingThyme]

22. How does your mind's eye see the people who sabataged the Plame operation

as whistleblowers?

[geek tragedy]

27. Any leak can be spun as whistleblowing.

It can be bullshit, of course. The question then is: what makes something whistleblowing and who gets to determine?

[BuyingThyme]

31. Crimes make for whistleblowing and it should be for the courts to determine

according to the laws.

[geek tragedy]

40. Okay. So, if the program was legal, jail time for the leaker/whistleblower? n/ t

[BuyingThyme]

45. If it's legal, it's not a whisleblower, is it?

[geek tragedy]

47. Well, that's the problem.

Most potential whistleblowers aren't attorneys and don't know whether something is illegal or not.

Also, what if the SCOTUS decides 5-4 that a program is legal. Still put the person in jail?

[BuyingThyme]

51. If a person acts in good faith, he or she shouldn't have to worry

about going to jail or being fired.

[geek tragedy]

53. I agree. But, what is 'good faith?'

Is someone who is honestly and 100% convinced that Obama is a Kenyan usurper allowed to leak stuff on that assumption?

I'm not trying to be a prick here--just trying to show that there is an inherent tension between keeping appropriate stuff secret and protecting whistleblowers.

[BuyingThyme]

56. I don't disagree that there's a gray area.

[geek tragedy]

58. And what Obama's saying is if a leak is unlawful, i.e. not

true whistleblowing, he has the right to forbid it.

[BuyingThyme]

63. Well, he also used confidential.

[geek tragedy]

65. "properly privileged or otherwise confidential' refers to

Executive Privilege, which is a constitutional right the president has. It essentially means, for instance, that he can instruct top State Department people to not blab the contents of their policy deliberations.

[BuyingThyme]

66. Executive privilege generally does not apply in the case of concealing criminal activities.

So said the supreme court.

And I wouldn't refer to executive privilege as a constitutional right.

[geek tragedy]

67. If the Privilege doesn't apply, then neither does his statement.

SCOTUS sez the Preznit has the privilege because of the Constitution. :shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

68. No, signing statements don't apply in law.

But as of late they do seem to reflect presidents' inclinations to live above the law.

I wouldn't say the president has the privilege of the executive because the Constitution grants him such a privilege. I would simply say that the Constitution grants specific powers to specific branches of government.

[geek tragedy]

69. Well, then the intent signified by his statement

doesn't apply.

[BuyingThyme]

70. Why not? Do you think he's lying?

[geek tragedy]

71. No, just saying that his statement doesn't apply

if it's allowable to leak it.

[Democrats_win]

10. Dear President, no more signing statements, either sign it or don't sign it.

It's almost Biblical. From the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told people to let their yes mean yes and their no mean no.

Of course he was talking about the idea of using "swearing" to convince people they realy meant what they were saying. Yet the idea is the same. If you sign it, that means you intend to stand behind it. Otherwise, don't sign it.

[geek tragedy]

13. Congress can't amend the constitution through statute.

Legislative vetoes are unconstitutional, and even if the President signs a bill with them attached, he's under no obligation to acknowledge them.

[BuyingThyme]

15. That's not for him to decide.

We have another whole branch of government for that. He can have his day in court.

[geek tragedy]

18. He can ignore it, and a member from Congress can sue if they don't like it.

That's how it gets resolved.

But, clearly unconstitutional statutes need not be enforced.

[TheWraith]

23. Clinton issued 1 signing statement every 20 days or so, on average.

At that rate, Obama's using them more sparingly than even Clinton did.

[BuyingThyme]

25. It's not the signing statements; it's what they say about the people doing the signing.

[demwing]

33. No. It's about intent, context, and transparency.

You're pretending that a signing statement carries legal weight, and is an end run around the constitution. In reality, it is only a statement of intent - "I disagree with this portion of this bill, and don't intend to pursue it".

Do you think that, should signing statements suddenly be stopped, the behavior behind the process would change in any way? It will not. All you accomplish by ridding the world of signing statements is more secrecy. Signing statements are a measure of transparency. You should be glad for their existence.

[BuyingThyme]

35. You just repeated what I said.

It's not the signing statements; it's what they say about the signer.

[demwing]

37. I have reworded my title. /nt

nt

[MessiahRp]

34. I wish Signing Statements were barred completely...

If the President doesn't like the law, veto it. Otherwise sign it and leave it as is. Signing Statements provide too many opportunities for abuse.

Rp