Democrats irked by Obama signing statement

Democrats irked by Obama signing statement

www.google.com

President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.

(visit the link for the full news article)

anyone else surprised at this, if you are its about time you wake up!!!!!!! WAKE UP!. he wont release his birth certificate cause he doesnt have one, shutting down guantanamo bay, stopping the wars, naaaaaa oh and while hes at it he'll spend a trillion dollars in one month, a record! no less... geeez...

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

grrrr MORE stuff to make me dislike Obama. I cannot stand this man at all. I didn't vote for him and neither did anyone I know. He isn't my president.

Just another puppet. This mans a liar and deceiver.

Peace.

Originally posted by jeasahtheseer
grrrr MORE stuff to make me dislike Obama. I cannot stand this man at all. I didn't vote for him and neither did anyone I know. He isn't my president.

Just another puppet. This mans a liar and deceiver.

Peace.

Yeah, it's hard to know who we're supposed to really stand for though, I mean, the whole thinking and quote of, I will respect my President, has seemed much harder through the years.

We'll find someone, or clean house.

What is a signing statement? I am familiar with government but I have never heard of that phrase before? Is it just another term for a Presidential veto? If it is a veto then he has the authority to do that with any legislation that crosses his desk. It is not a big deal it just means that the legislation needs to go back to Congress in order to work out the kinks found by the President and then it is resubmitted.

If it is not a veto, and he is shunning legislation by Congress for the sake of personal political disagreements; then it is really disturbing. Could someone define a "signing statement," and how it works or if it is even Constitutional on the part of the Executive Branch?

reply to post by Jakes51


Signing Statement

A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN).

During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's extensive use of signing statements, which critics charged modified the meaning of the statutes. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[1]

reply to post by Jakes51


A signing statement means that the president when reading through the bills marks out a section and adds in his own suggestions, saying that he will not obey this section of the bill and what not.

I maybe mistaken on this but, this what they refer to as a "line item veto". Which is BS anyway around it. The Executive Branch doesn't make laws, only the legislative branch has the authority to do so. The executive branch can only sign them or veto them.

The whole signing statements being a constitutional debate is absolute BS, the constitution spells it out clearly that the executive branch does not have the authority to make laws.

Either he agrees with the bill as written and signs it or veto's it, and the congress can override the veto. That is the way it works.

Well it sure looks like Bush's 3rd term in office is getting off to as rocky a start as his 2nd term ended.

I wonder if Barack will run against himself in 2012 claiming he is not four more years of Barack Obama?



[edit on 21/7/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I really appreciate the incite. So in essence, it is a way for the President to doctor legislation at his very whim and essentially over-ride the Constitution. This is the gray area that everyone should fear in terms of Executive authority. So this phenomenon has been on the books for years, as the article states, but in recent memory with former President Bush, and now President Obama; this nefarious act is now considered policy of the Executive Branch?

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Jakes51


It was also used by one of the very early presidents too. It hasn't been common up until Bush 43, he is the one that really really used it a bunch. Other presidents have used though, both Clinton and Reagen.

It's all BS, imo, because a line item veto or signing statement or whatever is essentially writing laws, which the executive branch cannot do.

You know lawyers though they will find a way around stuff.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

I find it hard to believe that any thinking adult (voter) in the US is surprised by this. At least, any voter over the age of, say 26. The candidates from both wings of the Power Party make a good show of opposing one another, but they never seem to find the time to undo the damage they allege the other has done.

Thomas Jefferson was no stranger to this phenonmenon:

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson

The series of oppressions was begun long ago. Some might say during the War of Northern Aggression. Some might say during the New Deal. Others might claim it was the Great Society. Regardless of which "distinguished period" you believe it began in, it is clear that it has transcended any single administration.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I agree with you a hundred percent and the President should use this provision as sparingly as possible! The abuse of this particular check can lead to Authoritarianism maybe not by President Obama but another President down the road. We see Obama using the acts of President Bush as precedent for his continued use of this policy and another will do the same of Obama. I say if President Obama doesn't like the language of bill,veto it, and send a memo to congress with his concern, but not take out an ink pen and essentially override the authority of congress by doctoring legislation. It is said, " too many cooks in the kitchen ruin the soup."


[edit on 21-7-2009 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Jakes51


The only time it should be used is to send the bill back to congress as a way to say this is what I disagree with.

You are exactly right, what is the point of having a legislative branch of government if the president can in effect write his own laws.

I didn't vote for the guy and don't support him, but he keeps falling back these excuses of, well this guy did it, every other president has done it.

I thought the voters voted for "change" and business in Washington as usual being over with?

That being said it really ticks me off. Although the polls are showing peoples disdain for him. So at least people are starting to wake up.

He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday.

What did he say in his signing statement about Reagan's birthday? That he wouldn't blow out the candles?

Seriously, though, signing statements should always be a matter of concern, even if they have, as the article states, been used for centuries.

There's always the danger of a president overstepping the constitutional bounds of his or her power.

I would like more details about what these signing statements actually said.

Perhaps the press should have the power to reprint any signing statements exactly as written by the president. Maybe they already do. In which case the American people should insist on our right to know.

Let me get this straight, he criticized Bush for doing this.and now he is doing the same damn thing,?
Do his Bush hating followers even know this is going on?

So we got Bush's third term and Carter's second all rolled up into one?

Is there no end to this circus they call government?

It's just another in a long line of broken promises from this man, here it is in his own words.


www.youtube.com...

You have to love that video evidence, I mean he says no right off the bat and then goes on about how awful Bush is for doing it.

That is just to easy. LOL

Here's Alex Jones's take on it. I know some hate him, but I find this rather amusing.


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Kords21


lol "Pimp Daddy" That was funny as hell!

I guess I have a new nickname for Obama.


Honestly, I'm not surprised. Obama never seems to surprise me anymore.

Originally posted by riddle6
reply to post by Kords21

 

lol "Pimp Daddy"

That was funny as hell!

I guess I have a new nickname for Obama.


Honestly, I'm not surprised. Obama never seems to surprise me anymore.

Hes surprising me constantly all the reasons he was going to bring change to Washington keep going out the window. I went looking on the INTERNET about campaign promises and i started going through them he hasn't kept 1 of them yet not 1 that i could find. Now that is scary because then he just lied to everybody about everything even bush had a 67 percent as far as his promises. And most presidents hit about that.And Obamma only chance to complete any of this will be before the mid term elections.This is why hes pushing Congress to vote on health care he knows the next term the democrats will most likely loose there majority.

PS It happens every time a party ends up in total control i honestly believe Americans like creating grid lock in Washington.

[edit on 7/21/09 by dragonridr]