• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama had Presidentail Precedent!

A

Anonymous

Guest
Since Obama had both in 2013 and again in 2014 signed signing statements to the National Defense Authorization Act declaring them to be a notification of Congress of unconstitutional parts and as a usurpation of Presidential powers under the separation of powers- the main legal question would lie around something GW Bush made famous- the signing statement...


Obama signing statement
Section 2262 of the Act would prohibit the use of funds for several positions that involve providing advice directly to the President. The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority. The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it.

Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President's ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President's ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives .


Where Obama has issued 18 signing statements- Bush set precedent when he issued 161 while in office- all going unchallenged by Congress... Many of GW's were to re-interpret or ignore, rather than veto, portions of laws he did not agree with... In some instances they exactly reversed the intent of the law (ex.-Mexican truck drivers)...

In fact GW set precedent by putting a signing statement on this same law- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008....

GW signing statement:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 is a law in the United States signed by President George W. Bush on January 28, 2008. As a bill it was H.R. 4986 in the 110th Congress. The overall purpose of the law is to authorize funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs. In a controversial signing statement, President Bush instructs the executive branch to construe Sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222 "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
-----------------------
In signing the law, the Bush administration continues its use of the signing statement to object to parts of laws it views as conflicting with what it alleges are the constitutional powers of the unitary executive, especially as they relate to national defense and the war in Iraq. The following Sections of the law referenced in the signing statement are listed, along with the possible impact of being mentioned in the signing statement:[2]
Section 841: May reduce oversight of contractual abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Section 846: Possibly limits protection to contractor employees when disclosing improper actions of the employer.
Section 1079: Could limit how much intelligence information Congress can demand from intelligence officials.
Section 1222: May limit Congressional oversight in the permanent establishment of U.S. military bases or the use of government funds to control oil resources in Iraq.

GW also set precedent by issuing a signing statement to The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (a law prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of any prisoner of the U.S. Government, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay ) which prohibited the water boarding of prisoners...

GW signing statement
Signing Statement:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."


While I'm no fan of signing statements- Obama definitely has precedent (and recent precedent of the same law) that went unchallenged by Congress or the Courts to stand behind... That is the reason I don't see any impeachment or anything besides a bunch of political howling, whining, crying and beeching (kind of like the coyote pack on this site :wink: :lol: )...

And as long as we have a dysfunctional partisan Congress that takes years to make a decision, IF it ever does make a decision- I believe we will see more executive mandates and signing statements used by the executive branch just in order to operate-- no matter if the President is Dem or Repub...
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Of course it was Bush's fault. Should've known.

So why has the regime already admitted that it didn't follow the law? Besides, this was a pi ss poor deal of a prisoner exchange, or more of a deserter exchange for high value al Qaeda. An action rather than an interpretation.

Looks like apples to oranges to me.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I like the way OT spelled "Presidentail" in this thread title. He is so much like Einstein, it's scary. :lol: :lol:

Dumb phuck...............................................

Obama had Presidentail Precedent!
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
I like the way OT spelled "Presidentail" in this thread title. He is so much like Einstein, it's scary. :lol: :lol:

Dumb phuck...............................................

Obama had Presidentail Precedent!

The 'tail' part is a forgivable error on his part since he's usually got his tongue up Obama's ass.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Traveler said:
Of course it was Bush's fault. Should've known.

So why has the regime already admitted that it didn't follow the law? Besides, this was a pi ss poor deal of a prisoner exchange, or more of a deserter exchange for high value al Qaeda. An action rather than an interpretation.

Looks like apples to oranges to me.

Not blaming Bush- just pointing out that both GW and Obama notified Congress that they felt the National Defense Authorization Act's that came before them to sign were in part unconstitutional and that they would refuse to follow those parts that they felt were...

I think its comical that most on here said nothing about GW's signing statements- and when I brought up the fact that he was setting possible dangerous precedent- I was the one attacked for questioning GW... Even when I pointed out that the next President might be a Democrat and use these precedents as part of his tool box...
I remember one Democrat Congressman pointing that out to a hearing - once you allow a procedure into a Presidents tool box- and set precedent- its almost impossible to remove it...And today he almost looks like a psychic when he predicted that the Repubs that refused to challenge GW's use of signing statements may see the same thing with a Democrat President- and then would scream bloody murder...



In fact Bush's use of signing statements and Presidential mandates led the ABA to appoint a blue ribbon panel to study the issue and report to Congress on it- which they did in August 2006...

Blue ribbon panel on signing statements

On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association's Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, appointed by ABA President Michael S. Greco, issued a widely publicized report condemning some uses of signing statements. The task force report and recommendations were unanimously approved by ABA delegates at their August 2006 meeting.

The bipartisan and independent blue ribbon panel was chaired by Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division for the Southern District of Florida. He is past chair of the ABA Criminal Justice Section, chair of the ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance and the ABA Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants; and president-elect of the American Judicature Society.

The report stated in part:
*"Among those unanimous recommendations, the Task Force voted to:"oppose, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, a President's issuance of signing statements to claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;

*"urge 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;

*"urge the President to confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose, and significance of bills, and to use his veto power if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional;

*"urge Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements, and to report to Congress the reasons and legal basis for any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and to make all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database."

BUT the dysfunctional partisan Congress has done NOTHING... Now some of those same folks that rubberstamped anything GW did are now screaming "impeach Obama"-- BUT because of all the legal precedent- it will not happen...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Traveler said:
Of course it was Bush's fault. Should've known.

So why has the regime already admitted that it didn't follow the law? Besides, this was a pi ss poor deal of a prisoner exchange, or more of a deserter exchange for high value al Qaeda. An action rather than an interpretation.

Looks like apples to oranges to me.

Not blaming Bush- just pointing out that both GW and Obama notified Congress that they felt the National Defense Authorization Act's that came before them to sign were in part unconstitutional and that they would refuse to follow those parts that they felt were...

I think its comical that most on here said nothing about GW's signing statements- and when I brought up the fact that he was setting possible dangerous precedent- I was the one attacked for questioning GW... Even when I pointed out that the next President might be a Democrat and use these precedents as part of his tool box...
I remember one Democrat Congressman pointing that out to a hearing - once you allow a procedure into a Presidents tool box- and set precedent- its almost impossible to remove it...And today he almost looks like a psychic when he predicted that the Repubs that refused to challenge GW's use of signing statements may see the same thing with a Democrat President- and then would scream bloody murder...



In fact Bush's use of signing statements and Presidential mandates led the ABA to appoint a blue ribbon panel to study the issue and report to Congress on it- which they did in August 2006...

Blue ribbon panel on signing statements

On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association's Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, appointed by ABA President Michael S. Greco, issued a widely publicized report condemning some uses of signing statements. The task force report and recommendations were unanimously approved by ABA delegates at their August 2006 meeting.

The bipartisan and independent blue ribbon panel was chaired by Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division for the Southern District of Florida. He is past chair of the ABA Criminal Justice Section, chair of the ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance and the ABA Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants; and president-elect of the American Judicature Society.

The report stated in part:
*"Among those unanimous recommendations, the Task Force voted to:"oppose, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, a President's issuance of signing statements to claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;

*"urge 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;

*"urge the President to confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose, and significance of bills, and to use his veto power if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional;

*"urge Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements, and to report to Congress the reasons and legal basis for any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and to make all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database."

BUT the dysfunctional partisan Congress has done NOTHING... Now some of those same folks that rubberstamped anything GW did are now screaming "impeach Obama"-- BUT because of all the legal precedent- it will not happen...

Care to place a monetary wager on your last statement?
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Oldtimer said:
Traveler said:
Of course it was Bush's fault. Should've known.

So why has the regime already admitted that it didn't follow the law? Besides, this was a pi ss poor deal of a prisoner exchange, or more of a deserter exchange for high value al Qaeda. An action rather than an interpretation.

Looks like apples to oranges to me.

Not blaming Bush- just pointing out that both GW and Obama notified Congress that they felt the National Defense Authorization Act's that came before them to sign were in part unconstitutional and that they would refuse to follow those parts that they felt were...

I think its comical that most on here said nothing about GW's signing statements- and when I brought up the fact that he was setting possible dangerous precedent- I was the one attacked for questioning GW... Even when I pointed out that the next President might be a Democrat and use these precedents as part of his tool box...
I remember one Democrat Congressman pointing that out to a hearing - once you allow a procedure into a Presidents tool box- and set precedent- its almost impossible to remove it...And today he almost looks like a psychic when he predicted that the Repubs that refused to challenge GW's use of signing statements may see the same thing with a Democrat President- and then would scream bloody murder...



In fact Bush's use of signing statements and Presidential mandates led the ABA to appoint a blue ribbon panel to study the issue and report to Congress on it- which they did in August 2006...

Blue ribbon panel on signing statements

On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association's Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, appointed by ABA President Michael S. Greco, issued a widely publicized report condemning some uses of signing statements. The task force report and recommendations were unanimously approved by ABA delegates at their August 2006 meeting.

The bipartisan and independent blue ribbon panel was chaired by Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division for the Southern District of Florida. He is past chair of the ABA Criminal Justice Section, chair of the ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance and the ABA Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants; and president-elect of the American Judicature Society.

The report stated in part:
*"Among those unanimous recommendations, the Task Force voted to:"oppose, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, a President's issuance of signing statements to claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;

*"urge 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;

*"urge the President to confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose, and significance of bills, and to use his veto power if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional;

*"urge Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements, and to report to Congress the reasons and legal basis for any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and to make all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database."

BUT the dysfunctional partisan Congress has done NOTHING... Now some of those same folks that rubberstamped anything GW did are now screaming "impeach Obama"-- BUT because of all the legal precedent- it will not happen...

Care to place a monetary wager on your last statement?

It's obvious how much she believes in what she tries to throw out here. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Oldtimer said:
Traveler said:
Of course it was Bush's fault. Should've known.

So why has the regime already admitted that it didn't follow the law? Besides, this was a pi ss poor deal of a prisoner exchange, or more of a deserter exchange for high value al Qaeda. An action rather than an interpretation.

Looks like apples to oranges to me.

Not blaming Bush- just pointing out that both GW and Obama notified Congress that they felt the National Defense Authorization Act's that came before them to sign were in part unconstitutional and that they would refuse to follow those parts that they felt were...

I think its comical that most on here said nothing about GW's signing statements- and when I brought up the fact that he was setting possible dangerous precedent- I was the one attacked for questioning GW... Even when I pointed out that the next President might be a Democrat and use these precedents as part of his tool box...
I remember one Democrat Congressman pointing that out to a hearing - once you allow a procedure into a Presidents tool box- and set precedent- its almost impossible to remove it...And today he almost looks like a psychic when he predicted that the Repubs that refused to challenge GW's use of signing statements may see the same thing with a Democrat President- and then would scream bloody murder...



In fact Bush's use of signing statements and Presidential mandates led the ABA to appoint a blue ribbon panel to study the issue and report to Congress on it- which they did in August 2006...

Blue ribbon panel on signing statements

On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association's Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, appointed by ABA President Michael S. Greco, issued a widely publicized report condemning some uses of signing statements. The task force report and recommendations were unanimously approved by ABA delegates at their August 2006 meeting.

The bipartisan and independent blue ribbon panel was chaired by Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division for the Southern District of Florida. He is past chair of the ABA Criminal Justice Section, chair of the ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance and the ABA Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants; and president-elect of the American Judicature Society.

The report stated in part:
*"Among those unanimous recommendations, the Task Force voted to:"oppose, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, a President's issuance of signing statements to claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;

*"urge 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;

*"urge the President to confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose, and significance of bills, and to use his veto power if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional;

*"urge Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements, and to report to Congress the reasons and legal basis for any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and to make all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database."

BUT the dysfunctional partisan Congress has done NOTHING... Now some of those same folks that rubberstamped anything GW did are now screaming "impeach Obama"-- BUT because of all the legal precedent- it will not happen...

Care to place a monetary wager on your last statement?

I'm not a betting man.... Not one of my sins..

You will probably get several extremist Congressmen entering bills of impeachment (like there were against GW) - but they then have to clear committee or have Boehner bring them to a vote (something Pelosi wouldn't allow because she knew how badly it would further divide the country)... Not sure what Boehner will do- but he's an old politician that's been around a long time and doesn't want to remove any tools from his party's future Presidents toolboxes... And he can see the hypocrisy involved that the public sees with GW having issued the same or more serious signing statements...
But if he allows it to go to a vote- an article of impeachment will probably pass a majority of the House because of the partisan makeup of the House...

BUT there is no way Obama would/could be convicted on this issue by a two thirds majority of the Senate-- and I think many Republicans realize that by taking it that far beside further dividing the public it could look pretty hypocritical to their cause when one of their own made the same signing statements and rulings on the same law...

NO- they'll howl and scream and try to make political hay out of it, until something else comes along to scream and yell about and then it will be stuck on a backburner for some committee to investigate...

I have to agree with Borowitz its getting so comical its almost sickly sad that all the Republican Congressmen spend their time on is investigating Obama- more committees and hearings- and not doing a productive thing in Congress...And many folks can see it... As many of the Vets I had an opportunity of visiting with last week said- this Veteran thing has been going on for years and years- and now for these politicians to act like its a big surprise and make it a big partisan issue is about enough to make them puke...Both parties bear a major responsibility....
 

Steve

Well-known member
I find it funny when some proclaims to uphold the Constitution yet makes excuses for why some do not follow it..



No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. However, there is also no part of the Constitution which grants any legal value to signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, to sign it, or to do nothing. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not.

in other words the signing statement ain't worth the paper it is written on..


Supreme Court rulings

The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled to Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005,

and that is the "LAW of the LAND"
 

Steve

Well-known member
During his presidential campaign, Obama rejected the use of signing statements. He was asked at one rally: "when congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?" Obama gave a one-word reply: "Yes."[20] He added that "we aren't going to use signing statements as a way to do an end run around Congress."

On March 11, 2009, President Obama issued his first signing statement, attached to the omnibus spending bill for the second half of FY2009.

all politicians lie.. but this guy is really one upping the whole bunch...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
I find it funny when some proclaims to uphold the Constitution yet makes excuses for why some do not follow it..



No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. However, there is also no part of the Constitution which grants any legal value to signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, to sign it, or to do nothing. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not.

in other words the signing statement ain't worth the paper it is written on..


Supreme Court rulings

The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled to Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005,

and that is the "LAW of the LAND"

You are correct- but unless a challenge is taken directly to the SCOTUS nothing will change...
And as that article continues- its only been the last 25 years that signing statements took on such significance and therefore such importance- so we only have those last few years of unchallenged precedent to go by...

Presidential usage

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe. Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges. As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.

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."

A November 3, 1993 memo from White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:
"If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority."

This same Department of Justice memorandum observed that use of Presidential signing statements to create legislative history for the use of the courts was uncommon before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies. In 1986, Attorney General Edwin Meese III entered into an arrangement with the West Publishing Company to have Presidential signing statements published for the first time in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, the standard collection of legislative history.

Another precedent is found within most of the states government - where most laws passed by the state legislature then come under the scrutiny of the Governor and the Attorney General-- and often the Attorney General will issue a ruling stating part of a law is unconstitutional and advise the Executive branch not to follow it... This then becomes law until overturned by a court...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Where Obama has issued 18 signing statements- Bush set precedent when he issued 161 while in office- all going unchallenged by Congress... Many of GW's were to re-interpret or ignore, rather than veto, portions of laws he did not agree with... In some instances they exactly reversed the intent of the law (ex.-Mexican truck drivers)...


A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php


If you remember OT, many on Ranchers, myself included mentioned that Bush did not wield the veto pen enough...in other words...too many signing statements, and not enough vetos.

But par, for the course, for a "Neocon/Neo-Liberal".

Time for a true Conservative, or what you call a "rightwing extremist nutjob"

edited to add: I get a kick out of your use of "precedent" and "slippery slope", in different partisan situations, as if they are synonymous...
 

Latest posts

Top