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

Ranchers.net

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...
Top