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

page: 2
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

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.


Why not try learning something before you post BS. This practice has become the overriding problem with ATS. People start ill informed and poorly researched threads that just offend anyone with half a brain.The precept of this site is to "deny ignorance", but instead seems to propagate it.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bladerunner44
 


I seem to be involved in this, even though I think your post is directed toward Vitchilo.

May I suggest you report me and this post to the mods? It will probably be seen as off-topic at least.

Vitchilo and I are not always in agreement, but he's been around a long time and done some very good work. I've probably made more mistakes than he has. (I've offered apologetic corrections three times in the less than a year I've been here.)

Some of us are here to learn, I have learned from Vitchilo, now, apparently he's picked up something from me.

I am not offended by the thread. It's not in the spirit of ATS to be offended by an innocently incorrect thread. There are too many of those to be offended by.

In my opinion, jumping on Vitchilo is a bad mistake.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bladerunner44
 


Well dude, we learn things every day. Don't you? Yeah I should have done my research better, after all, it doesn't surprise me that the other puppets who call themselves presidents have used signing statements too to ignore congress...

We try our best when bringing the information and it's all we can do... and I think I'm not making many mistakes overall considering the amount of stuff I post on ATS.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
So if sign all the documents agreeing to the terms of a mortgage, and I don't feel like being bound by the paying interest part, I can just blow it off? I wish I knew I had that option.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bladerunner44

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.


Why not try learning something before you post BS. This practice has become the overriding problem with ATS. People start ill informed and poorly researched threads that just offend anyone with half a brain.The precept of this site is to "deny ignorance", but instead seems to propagate it.


He admitted his mistake, in public for all to see, and yet you continue to browbeat him. I guess you've never made a mistake before. Good for you. Be gracious instead of a jerk.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
So, I'm curious as to what the signing statement says...if anyone has that info I'd be glad to see it.

I mean, if congress is trying to limit the ability of the executive branch then that's unconstitutional...isn't it? No one branch should be above another.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bladerunner44



Why not try learning something before you post BS. This practice has become the overriding problem with ATS. People start ill informed and poorly researched threads that just offend anyone with half a brain.The precept of this site is to "deny ignorance", but instead seems to propagate it.


 


Ya but it sure does make good conversation not to mention the fact that it alerts readers to the real stories.

Don't be a sourpuss during the holidays.

Some people get the wrong message from tainted m$m articles and continue to believe it without discussion.

Dull and boring threads seldom get to the bottom of things.

"ignorance" is fueled by the one sided opinions.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
This is Obama's 17th signing statement. George W. Bush issued 161 signing statements affecting over 1,100 provisions of law in 160 Congressional enactments.

Signing statements date back to the Monroe presidency when he became the first to use it in 1822. Andrew Jackson used it in 1830, John Tyler in 1848. It is the increased use of it that has become the biggest concern and no less than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress since 2006 to stop or limit it. The most recent was in April 2009 when Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) introduced S. 875, a bill to "regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the interpretation of Acts of Congress." It was co-sponsored by Jon Tester (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA). None have ever gone anywhere, most die "in committee".

This is Spector's third try to pass the bill, his first when he was a Republican. Others that have introduced legislation since 2006 are Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-Tx) twice, Barney Frank (D-Ma) has done so three times, Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter B. Jones (R-NC), and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).

I think that a president's ability to use this should be limited or removed; it is why they have veto power. The difference is a veto can be overridden in Congress, a signing statement cannot. So it serves as a "line item" veto, something for which the last 10 presidents or so have lobbied.

However, making this yet another condemnation of Obama, who has used it far less than the last 5 presidents, seems petty and misplaced. If anything, he is at least reducing the action.
edit on 25-12-2011 by Beaux because: Typo



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


He can employ signing statements when a particular section of a law is a threat to The Constitution and the threat to the free exercise thereof contained therein.

IE, he as Commander in Chief activate said authourity to deny say, FEMA or The Pentagon from the ability the right to implement Martial Law as in this nation everything starts and ends at The White House hence why The White House is considered to be (albeit a part of the Executive Branch) the Office Of The POTUS does in fact have final say regarding all matters domestically.

1 signing statement from 43 that I actually support :
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive Of 2007!

Up until 2006 FEMA on it's own had the sole and exclusive authourity to implement martial law which this directive strips FEMA of this ability and transfers it back to where it should've been all along and that is with The Office Of POTUS as everything starts and ends at The White House!
edit on 25-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by bladerunner44
 


I seem to be involved in this, even though I think your post is directed toward Vitchilo.

May I suggest you report me and this post to the mods? It will probably be seen as off-topic at least.

Vitchilo and I are not always in agreement, but he's been around a long time and done some very good work. I've probably made more mistakes than he has. (I've offered apologetic corrections three times in the less than a year I've been here.)

Some of us are here to learn, I have learned from Vitchilo, now, apparently he's picked up something from me.

I am not offended by the thread. It's not in the spirit of ATS to be offended by an innocently incorrect thread. There are too many of those to be offended by.

In my opinion, jumping on Vitchilo is a bad mistake.


I would never report anyone! Everyone is entitle to their opinions. I can respect opinions stated as such. The issue I have is with misconstrued facts twisted for a personal agenda to influence the uninformed. Enough said on my part. Happy holidays and be safe out there



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
So, I'm curious as to what the signing statement says...if anyone has that info I'd be glad to see it.

I mean, if congress is trying to limit the ability of the executive branch then that's unconstitutional...isn't it? No one branch should be above another.



Here is the statement...it would have been useful to include in the OP, but it seems Modis Operandi not to include the actual statements in rhetorically/emotionally driven OPs.

www.whitehouse.gov...

President GW Bush issued 130 signing statements, over 750 opinions, 1100 challenges via signing statements.

President Obama has issued 19 signing statements.


edit on 26-12-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I appreciate the effort but HR 2055 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012) is not HR 1540 (National Defense Authorization Act, 2012).

We're still waiting on the release of the official signing statement saying the executive branch is not bound by 'huge sections' of the NDAA, 2012.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


You are confused.

This OP is about the Government funding bill, NOT the Defense funding bill…and he has released the signing statement….and I linked to it above.

From this threads opening OP…


Originally posted by Vitchilo

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.



I will help further...for example the provisions he objected to on Guantanamo Bay as cited in the OP....here it is in the signing statement...from the signing statement I provided in the link above.



In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.


This OP and the article it cites is not about the Defense Funding Bill.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I was confused, thank you! Somewhere I got lost in the thread about the NDAA signing statements and this one.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join