The Emperor's [Obama's] Signing Statments, page 1

The Emperor's Seven Signing Statements

American Chronicl

Lawless detention is the least of it. State secrets and warrantless spying scrape the surface. Drone attacks and ongoing torture begin to touch it. But central to the power of an emperor, and the catastrophes that come from the existence of an emperor, is the elimination of any other force within the government. Signing statements eliminate congress. Not that congress objects. Asking congress to reclaim its power produces nervous giggles.

Look at how the latest war supplemental funding bill was passed. The Emperor's people wrote most of the bill. The Emperor combined it with the IMF banker bailout. The Emperor threatened and bribed his way to deals with enough congress members to pass it. The Emperor preemptively told other nations the bill would pass and then badgered congress with the claim that this nation (He, the nation) would be damaged if he turned out to have lied. The Emperor lied to congress members and the public that this would be the last war supplemental bill. Congress members claimed to back it because it was the last one (not that this made the slightest sense), and others openly, proudly, and obliviously declared that they were switching their votes to yes in order to please the Emperor.

When the bill came to Emperor Barack he signed it and released his sixth and only legal signing statement announcing that he'd signed it. Two days later (Fridays being the favored day for signing statements) Obama released his seventh signing statement, claiming to have signed the same bill on that day as well, but perhaps beginning to establish the precedent that "signing statements," like "executive orders," can be issued at any time.

It goes further into detail on what his seven signing statements said (in the interest of not posting incredibly long quotes I'll let you go to the article to read those) but I since I know not everybody goes to the source to read the entire article--unfortunately--I wanted to highlight the beginning and the end (which brings it on home) [emphasis mine]:

Is it time to stop endlessly being "shocked" by these yet? Obama, like Bush, argues in his signing statements that the sections of law he intends to violate are unconstitutional. The problem is not that either one of these presidents is necessarily always wrong or that such questions can ever be decided to everyone's satisfaction. The problem is that the Constitution requires the president to veto a bill or sign and faithfully execute it. The time to argue against the constitutionality of a provision is before a bill is passed or upon vetoing it. Such an argument can even be made upon signing a bill. It just can't be accompanied by a declaration of the power to violate the law.

Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton made innovations in the abuse of signing statements without which Bush Jr. could not have done what he did. Now Obama is further advancing the genre. At some point, of course -- as Germans once learned (and learned before nukes or climate crises were on the table) -- it can become too late to act.

If there were parts of the bill that Obama didn't agree with then he should veto the bill and back to the drawing board we go. There's no excuse for picking and choosing which parts of the bill he, or any other president for that matter, WANTS to abide by. If this continues, there's no limit to what the president can, or can't, do.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

---

I know. I completely misunderstood what line item veto meant. This is not democracy when the President can pick and choose what part of the law he wants to abide by.

I thought it meant that he can say he's not going to veto a bill but he's not going to pass it either due to some certain stipulation in the bill and then it goes back for further editing, review, voting. Boy was I wrong.

It looks like Bush was doing the same thing and that's probably why we kept hearing that everything he was doing was perfectly legal. Because he wrote a signing statement while passing a bill saying that he'll let it slide but will only adhere to certain parts and the others were more like suggestions. Seems like Obama thought that was great idea.

Bastards...

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

What do you mean? Are you denying that Obama even made these signing statements? Because that would be ludicrous. You can disagree with what the "blogger's" opinions are, or mine for that matter, but you should also address the issue of presidents making signing statements.

Just because you don't agree with the blogger doesn't mean that the entire issue is of no consequence.

Edit:

Please explain how I posted this thread as a flame tactic? I didn't make this into a right vs. left issue. My issue is with the very existence and practice of signing statements. Even the blogger pointed that out, but he is using the most recent signing statements as an example because they apply to current events and are therefore easier to relate to.

I wanted to have a discussion about signing statements and whether or not they can be considered an ethical practice. I gave my opinions for why I think they aren't and you should give your opinions on why you think they are or aren't.

If you don't care either way, then why did you come into this thread just to accuse me of trying to do nothing more than get points or stars? If you have some substance to add to the topic, then do so.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by nunya13]

reply to post by nunya13

---

You could check this out at the US department of justice site. Presidents are allowed to use these signing statements if they feel that part of a bill is in conflict with part of the Constitution or the President's interpretation of the Constitution so it's not supposed to be used as a partisan weapon. If a President does a signing statement he may make a case to not use of his or her executive powers to enact or realize that part of the bill. Signing statements cannot necessarily stop that part of the bill from being enacted, but it alerts people (and Constitutional lawyers) that the President has Constitutional objections to that part of the bill or legislation.

www.usdoj.gov...

Line item veto means that the President could veto (remove) parts of the final bill and not have to "yay" or "nay" the whole thing int its entirety The advantage of a line item veto is that it would speed the legislative process up tremendously and reduce the bulk and size of these bills and all their amendments and pork but many people feel it would give the President too much power. Reagan and Clinton both pushed for it hard it.

President Bush made more signing statements than any other President - some people claim many of his had nothing to do with Constitutional issues but merely partisan agenda. I think we don't have enough of a track record to see if President Obama is using them in the same way. The bill in question is about war funding...I'm sure it's a mess.

Breaking News: Judge Doesn\'t Rule, Secretary of State Doesn\'t Agree - Obama NOT off
  Posted 15 days ago with 39 member flags

On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags

Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 8 days ago with 16 member flags

As of feb 9th, Canada\'s own version of SOPA: Bill C-11 will kill more of your freedom
  Posted 13 days ago with 11 member flags

Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags

Councilman wants sheriff to stop urging people to get pistol permits
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags

Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags

ATS is not as awake as it should be. You might still be sleeping...
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: