hypocritexposer
Well-known member
President Obama has issued more signing statements at this point in his presidency than George Bush. And yet, the crickets are chirping in the media and on the left for all the stink they've made about it.
Sandhusker said:That ought to get a post of condemnation from OT, he hates signing statements.
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. 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. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
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.
Obama's Signing Statement and Federal Agencies
President Obama said earlier this week that he will rarely state his own interpretation of legislation, but he issued his first "signing statement" on Wednesday, outlining five points of disagreement with the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress. While they are minor points in a bill with at least 1,132 pages, a few of them deal directly with his role as head of the federal bureaucracy.
Obama raises concerns with provisions that "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," the president states.
Several parts of the bill suggest that agency heads can only "spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees," but Obama states that "These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement." The administration will instead take into account the recommendations of committees, but "spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees."
The president also objects to provisions that give congressional committees "the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings." Obama states that "Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory."
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
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.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.
President Obama said earlier this week that he will rarely state his own interpretation of legislation, but he issued his first "signing statement" on Wednesday, outlining five points of disagreement with the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress. While they are minor points in a bill with at least 1,132 pages, a few of them deal directly with his role as head of the federal bureaucracy.
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. 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. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
Sandhusker said:OT, "I don't seem to remember any of you boys screaming about GW using signing statements-even when he completely thru out laws passed bipartisanly by Congress- but thats not surprising as thats the reason he set so much precedent for Presidential power and abuse- everyone just backslapped him..."
Then you don't remember this post of mine;
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject:
You ought to see what he does with signing statements. The folks that call him "King George" have a point.
You see, I wasn't real proud of W, either, but that didn't cause me to close my eyes and run to the left. OT, why have you become such a whore for this man? You're the MRJ and SH for NCBA all rolled into one and magnified times 10. Let me assure you, this man's crap does stink.
Sandhusker said:"I gave Bush 5 years- until it was obvious (to anyone that looked) that he would bankrupt the country"
It must not of been too obvious, because Bush didn't bankrupt the country.
I think you're refusing to look at Obama, because it's obvious that he's the one far more likely to bankrupt the country! Jeeeze, OT, compare the spending, compare the deficits to GDP. Compare our debt holder's comments, compare by any way you can think of and there's no doubt that Obama is the one to be afraid of! Come on, man, just because you didn't like Bush doesn't mean that you have to prove that by liking Obama! Heck, I'm proof of that. Take off those self-imposed blinders and LOOK!
Sandhusker said:Damnit, OT, you know dang good and well that the collapse of Fannie and Freddie is 90% of our economic problems, and that can't be hung on Bush - that goes directly on the Dodd and Frank led Democrats policy.
What do you have to gain by ignoring facts? Come on, man! You've made a decison, consiously or subconsiously, to assume a completely biased position to support Obama regardless of documented facts. You've got to get a grip.