It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama orders review of Bush's Signing Statements

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Obama orders review of Bush's Signing Statements


news.yahoo.com

President Barack Obama on Monday ordered a review of George W. Bush's guidelines for implementing legislation passed by Congress, at the same time saying that he would employ his own version of how he wants the government to follow the law.

In a memo to senior government officials, Obama said they must check with Attorney General Eric Holder before relying on any of Bush's signing statements for guidance. Bush often issued a statement when signing a bill into law, and critics said the statements at times showed government officials how to circumvent the law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.

(visit the link for the full news article)




Related News Links:
www.huffingtonpost.com


[edited to fix truncated title!]



[edit on 9-3-2009 by cnichols]




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Is this a step in the right direction to getting things passed in a more consitutional way?

I'd like to think so. According to this article Bush attached these "singing statements" to legislation in an attempt to (if I've read this right) bypass Legislation that limited what he could do.

Now keep in mind I'm not on a Bash Bush/Support Obama frame of mind but we all know that Bush passed alot of stuff that was "questionable" when it came to the Consitution. I would like to think that Obama is taking steps to reviewing these signing statements made by Bush and reversing the ones that are unconsitutional.

It will be interesting indeed to see which ones he decides to reverse.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edited to fix truncated title!]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by cnichols]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Are you suggesting that the Obama administration has no intention of abusing signing statements if they can get away with it? Remember, this is the administration that tried to move the National Census to the White House just days after the inauguration under the nose of the American people.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Are you suggesting that the Obama administration has no intention of abusing signing statements if they can get away with it? Remember, this is the administration that tried to move the National Census to the White House just days after the inauguration under the nose of the American people.



Obama is satan!

do you feel better?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I'm glad this is coming under review. Any time a President takes extraordinary measures and broadens the interpretation of executive power it needs to be reviewed and should have been scrutinized more carefully just as Cheney's decision to broaden or interpret his role as the Vice President. Was he part of the Senate or was he part of the executive? He seemed to change his mind on that when it suited him.

I hope President Obama pares down these executive privileges and doesn't try to grab more power and subvert the will of Congress the way President Bush did. This is good news. Bush's signing statements - were they even constitutional? Did he think those signing statements were permissible under the Patriot Acts?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
A signing statement is like a line-item veto for the president. The entire bill gets passed but if the president disagree with any part of it, he don't have to obey it and can just ignore it.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

President Reagan wanted the line item veto and so did Clinton. It's never passed. So instead of getting it passed, President Bush just did his own thing and claimed it was for the sake of national security.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

President Reagan wanted the line item veto and so did Clinton. It's never passed. So instead of getting it passed, President Bush just did his own thing and claimed it was for the sake of national security.


Exactly. And I don't have any illusions on Obama. He will use them as soon as he lose congress at the next election. Until then, he'll just have whatever he wants in the bills.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

President Reagan wanted the line item veto and so did Clinton. It's never passed. So instead of getting it passed, President Bush just did his own thing and claimed it was for the sake of national security.



Exactly. This is what allowed Bush to get away with half the things he did.

And in response to sos37 ......... YES I expect the Obama Administration to follow the Constitution. Does this mean they will? The only ones who know that are the Obama Administration. The guy hasn't even been in office for 100 Days and everone automatically assumes he's going to be like every other president. Maybe he will and maybe he won't. But without hope, life isn't worth living.

He's already reversed several things ...

Gitmo
Abortion
Stem Cell Research

Wonder what else will be reversed?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
i will give that hes may or not be like every other president -HES GONNA BE WAY WORSE.

obama is gonna end up making bush look like a fiscal conservative. after he spends spends spends this country into oblivion.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I don't know about that ... something just came to mind that I hadn't even considered before ... an old saying ...

You have to spend money to make money.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
that saying is for people who want to get rich

the problem with that is when the government spends money comes from you
when they run out of money they raise your taxes when the agian run out of money they raise your taxes agian and so on and so forth til eventually you have a bunch of halfazzed federally fund progams that are joke

what are the 2 biggest fed programs that are a jokes?
social security and medicare that cannont be funded and those are just 2


the problem with social programs is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by neo67]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by sos37
Are you suggesting that the Obama administration has no intention of abusing signing statements if they can get away with it? Remember, this is the administration that tried to move the National Census to the White House just days after the inauguration under the nose of the American people.



Obama is satan!

do you feel better?


Come off your slippery slope, please. I didn't even imply such. Satan? No. Typical politician? You betcha!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I think Keith Olbermann said it best last night:


Number one, signing statement-gate. All those signing statements to which we‘ve just referred, in which Mr. Bush challenged 1,200 sections of bills over eight years, like a Congressional torture ban. Today, President Obama ordered executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric Holder first before relying on any of those signing statements. However, this president has reserved his right to issue such statements, noting that he will act, quote, with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.

Such signing statements were used sparingly for 200 years. Bush the great exception. Mr. president, the separation of powers is pretty clear here. If you are good with it, sign it. If you think it harmful or unconstitutional, veto the whole thing. If you don‘t plan on forcing part of it, get a new plan.

Obama taught constitutional law, he should know better.


TRANSCRIPT

[edit on 3/11/2009 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
"Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds"

So am I to take this as he did not agree with a part of a bill on constitutional grounds and without a line item veto he wrote how to get around this part because he disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.

I'm sure my poor uneducated self is missing something.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by sos37
Are you suggesting that the Obama administration has no intention of abusing signing statements if they can get away with it? Remember, this is the administration that tried to move the National Census to the White House just days after the inauguration under the nose of the American people.



Obama is satan!

do you feel better?


Come off your slippery slope, please. I didn't even imply such. Satan? No. Typical politician? You betcha!


Come off your slippery avatar, I suppose it implies he is an angel.

????



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 

Ha! I'd almost sworn off my ignore button but now I remember why I liked it so much before. That avatar you speak of? Buh bye. That's some very disrespectful stuff. I gotta say though say I've learned from this thread something I didn't know before about signing statements. I thought they were a Bush invention...not an invention but rather just an abuse or overuse, shall we say?
I'm glad the new President is going to be careful with these.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join