Obama signs bill, says he's not bound by huge sections of it

Obama, acting like Bush once again... surprise surprise. Using signing statements to ignore what he wants. Basically ignoring congress...

EDIT : Signing statements were used by a number of presidents, including Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, W Bush and Obama...

Obama says he's not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisions

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

On constitutional grounds. Riiiiiiiight.

Obama also objected to Defense provisions in the bill that limit the president's ability to put troops under foreign command

So if Obama wants to give US troops under UN command, he will do it without congress approval... how nice.

and require 30 days advance notice to Congress for any use of the military which would involve more than $100,000 in construction costs.

Aka let's ignore congress if I want to build missile interceptors in eastern Europe... or build secret drone bases in other countries... or install bases around Syria and Iran to conduct black ops... stuff like that. Or camps for protesters...

The signing statement also objects to a portion of the omnibus that limits funding for the Copyright Office.

Because the copyright office will soon be used to destroy the internet and they need MONEY to do that.

Obama also objected to 13 sections of the State department bill, arguing they limit his ability to conduct foreign policy. In particular he objected provisions that withhold funding from Middle East allies unless the administration reveals details on ongoing negotiations to Congress.

Nothing to hide then nothing to fear right?? That's what you're telling us 24/7!

Remember Obama on signing statements :


Thanks to pianopraze for pointing that out in another thread.

I was under the impression that we had an execuitive, legislative, judiciary branches of the government for a reason. So that one person couldn't create a dictatorship in America.

So that one president couldn't disregard legislation (if he didn't like it).

Sad state of affairs.

Please don't bother the Obama family while they are spending $4 Million PLUS of thee taxpayers money on his hard-earned Hawiian vacation to his "native" state.

reply to post by beezzer


Bush changed all that with signing statements. Obama is continuing to give more power to the office of president. The NDAA wasn't enough, he just remembered signing statements.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by beezzer

 

Bush changed all that with signing statements. Obama is continuing to give more power to the office of president. The NDAA wasn't enough, he just remembered signing statements.

I'm not giving Bush a pass on this by any means.
Signing statements (to me) appear unconstitutional. If/when we get a conservative in office, I'd still be against the process. It gives too much authority to just on person, one ideology, one viewpoint.

reply to post by Vitchilo

Dear Vitchilo,

Despite what it looks like, this isn't specifically directed towards you. Why does Bush's name pop up so often in the signing statement discussion?

A Congressional Research Service report issued on September 17, 2007, uses as a metric the percentage of signing statements that contain "objections" to provisions of the bill being signed into law:

President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.

Maybe Clinton's name should be used?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Well thanks for that info... Didn't know it was used that much by the other presidents... I thought the practice was started by Bush...

Well you learn something new every day apparently.

The only things he is bound to is lobster and steak dinners, the golf course, and posh vacations. Matters of reliable and constitutional governance do not apply. He is just cherry picking legislation. Other Presidents have done the same thing. If he does not like a bill? Use his veto power!

Oh wait, he does not want to be out on the hook politically. So he is playing the pick and choose game, and using the old tactic of double-speak. Moreover, he will say later on if things go astray, "Well, I did not sign off on that particular provision, but the bill had to pass." So he does not look like an obstructionist. There is an election next year! We can give him a new title. Congressional Editor and Chief. Enjoy the sun and umbrella drinks in Hawaii!

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by beezzer

 

Bush changed all that with signing statements. Obama is continuing to give more power to the office of president. The NDAA wasn't enough, he just remembered signing statements.

I'm not giving Bush a pass on this by any means.
Signing statements (to me) appear unconstitutional. If/when we get a conservative in office, I'd still be against the process. It gives too much authority to just on person, one ideology, one viewpoint.

For sure Beez. I'd also like very much for an initiative to be started up to revisit the
constitutionality of Executive Orders in general when they don't pertain DIRECTLY to
administration of agencies directly regulated by the Executive. They're being used by
the head honcho for everything from soup to wingnuts, and all the way back to that
Washington guy.
I mean, snagging transportation systems and telecommunications? Comandeering FOOD,
as if ... Sir Charlie, maybe a dozen with the rope's end WILL wake the lad up.
We can hope, but I doubt it by now.

Originally posted by beezzer
I was under the impression that we had an execuitive, legislative, judiciary branches of the government for a reason. So that one person couldn't create a dictatorship in America.

So that one president couldn't disregard legislation (if he didn't like it).

Sad state of affairs.

I would have to say that sounds like an Impeachable Offense to me . Writing my Congressman won't do any good though , he along with the rest of them were Gelded Years ago...........

Originally posted by beezzer
I was under the impression that we had an execuitive, legislative, judiciary branches of the government for a reason. So that one person couldn't create a dictatorship in America.

So that one president couldn't disregard legislation (if he didn't like it).

Sad state of affairs.

I think we all know where this is heading. You have to be blind to not see that were practically already a police state.

Our troops just got back from Iraq and many are getting sent right back and into Afghanistan but for what purpose? To finish up there and move on to Pakistan or Iran next? Is this clown really trying to start WWIII?

Obama signs bill, says he's not bound by huge sections of it

He isn't making much sense. Unless he's thinking he's a dictator or something. Then what he says makes perfect sense in that light. Any chance we can get a few reporters out on the golf course in Hawaii to ask him about it?

These statements seem to me, to be a mish-mosh version of a "Line Item Veto". Which the result is basically the same. As for the video, if there EVER is a candidate that does exactly what they say they will in their election speeches... Hell has frozen over.

Isn't it just something how this seems to work. I recall the democrats screaming bloody murder when previous administrations they weren't friendly to pulled these stunts to circumvent Congress...and that is all this is, after all.

What has to rub me wrong the most though is hearing Obama's people or anyone else point to Presidents all the way back to Reagan and their behavior in moving us away from Constitutional principals as a justification for continuing the improper conduct and moving us even FURTHER from those principles.

The man and those before him were elected to Support, Defend and SERVE the Constitutional values and principles...not tear into them and reshape the very core of America as they see fit. We do *NOT* elect potentates and tyrants..which is what this is fast becoming.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Remember Obama on signing statements :

WOW!!! Now that is the pinacle of hypocrisy. He speaks so "genuinely" about it and points out how Bush abused his power... then he does the exact same thing he condemned.

I'm just flabbergasted. He doesn't even care how obvious his lies are. It's like he just thinks nobody will ever go back and check what he said in the past. He makes me absolutely furious.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Remember Obama on signing statements :

WOW!!! Now that is the pinacle of hypocrisy.

He speaks so "genuinely" about it and points out how Bush abused his power... then he does the exact same thing he condemned.

I'm just flabbergasted. He doesn't even care how obvious his lies are. It's like he just thinks nobody will ever go back and check what he said in the past. He makes me absolutely furious.

And he's right. You don't ever see the press question what he's doing unlike other Presidents. It seems since obamas got elected he's had free rein to do as he pleases, with little to no hard pressed questions from the press who in the far distant pass were supposed to (in my opinion) be the people watchdogs to keep the government from over stepping their bounds. obama doesn't hide his lies anymore because he knows nobody'll call him on it.

Oh...I think he's in for a big surprise come the 2012 elections. He's about to be put out to pasture on a golf course, and he is too arrogant to even see it coming.

Previous Presidents have had memorable buildings named after them.......

The Obama golf course will be his legacy

Originally posted by Destinyone
Oh...I think he's in for a big surprise come the 2012 elections.

You may be in for a surprise. Congress does not have any money to fund a 2012 Presidential Election.

We might be stuck with our Dictator. After all, we are a Republic. Not a Democracy.


The picture painted to school kids on what our Federal Government is, is not actually what it is.

Our Presidents have always enjoyed doing whatever, to whoever they wished. President Obama had the U.S. Department of Education buy SHOTGUNS with 14" barrels:

voices.washingtonpost.com...

Now why would the Federal Department of Education be buying 27 short barrel shotguns?

Change is coming.

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by Destinyone
Oh...I think he's in for a big surprise come the 2012 elections.

You may be in for a surprise. Congress does not have any money to fund a 2012 Presidential Election.

We might be stuck with our Dictator. After all, we are a Republic. Not a Democracy.


The picture painted to school kids on what our Federal Government is, is not actually what it is.

Our Presidents have always enjoyed doing whatever, to whoever they wished. President Obama had the U.S. Department of Education buy SHOTGUNS with 14" barrels:

voices.washingtonpost.com...

Now why would the Federal Department of Education be buying 27 short barrel shotguns?

Change is coming.

Well...if you had read the first 3 paragraphs of your own link you would have known.

Education Department buying 27 shotguns
By Valerie Strauss

Why is the Education Department purchasing 27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns (all new, no re-manufactured products, thank you)?

The guns are to replace old firearms used by Education’s Office of Inspector General, which is the law enforcement arm of the department.

Here’s a statement from the office in response to a question about why need 27 shotguns with a 14-inch barrels:

“The Office of Inspector General is the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms. The acquisition of these firearms is necessary to replace older and mechanically malfunctioning firearms, and in compliance with Federal procurement requirements. For more information on OIG’s law enforcement authority, please visit their Web site at : www.ed.gov/oig”

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by charles1952

 

Well thanks for that info... Didn't know it was used that much by the other presidents... I thought the practice was started by Bush...

Well you learn something new every day apparently.