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 defense bill despite 'reservations'

page: 5
95
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
lets get a few issues straight.
these signing statements basically mean nothing. he can say even though he signed it, no provisions in the bill will ever be enforced, if he wanted to. means nothing, really.




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 use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes. The practice predates the Bush administration, however, and has since been continued by the Obama administration.[1] 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".[2][dead link] In fact, the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety and return it to the House in which it originated, along with his written objections to it.





Legal significanceNo United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. However, there is also no part of the Constitution which grants any legal value to signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, to sign it, or to do nothing. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws is he going to obey and execute, and which he is not.
Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself. There is a controversy about whether they should be considered as part of legislative history; proponents argue that they reflect the executive's position in negotiating with Congress; opponents assert that the executive's view of a law is not constitutionally part of the legislative history because only the Congress may make law.

Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws. A 2007 article in the Administrative Law Review noted how some federal agencies' usage of signing statements may not withstand legal challenges under common law standards of judicial deference to agency action.[9]

[edit] Supreme Court rulingsThe Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department — see "Presidential Usage" below).


source




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by euphoria5150
 


and,

we have mentioned WHY Obama would even bring the matter to attention if it were moot.

think about it.

And,

find the video with that Senator on the floor of the senate confirming it.

It's a Statue of Liberty football play.


ETA: added link to video
www.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on Jan-01-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
and a few issues with the bill itself.




(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.





Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens


construed to affect existing law.




During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment intended to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens;[18] the amendment was rejected by a vote of 38–60.[19] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible."[20]
A later amendment to preserve current law concerning U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, and others captured within the United States, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, was accepted 99 to 1.[21] Senator Feinstein has argued that current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, while the Obama Administration and Senators John McCain and Carl Levin have argued that it does.[5]


wiki link



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

This is terrible, we are now all doom. I was worried about this bill passing because people who disagree with the government could end up being detain for no reason.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Imagine what Obama can do with this Power to his Political Rivals . Destroy their Careers and KILL any Resistance to his Policies..........In short , he becomes Americas first Caesar ..............

edit on 1-1-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Obama is a lying prick... and just to think at one time he had my support.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Are there any views of his you do support? Better yet, are there any parts of his character you support?

You see he's the true maverick in this presidential race - and - the only hope this nation has of undoing and preventing any further damage to America. He'll be fought and pushed on most of his views and will have constant battles with congress forcing him to pick-and-choose his battles carefully, so realistically he won't accomplish everything he's stated in his views on an ideal nation (like abolishing regulations on the sale of safe food) but I believe he will bring a voice reason and common sense to the government - and that type of voice needed right now. Right now the voice of the government is one of corruption, greed and power.

Living in a state that's gone Republican for the last 100 years I wasn't going to go vote because it would cut into my wages, and my vote was for Obama. Between Obama's overwhelming charisma with the context of his message he would win,and being in a place that has a 20:1 ratio of republicans to democrats, my voice was pretty null in local issues too.

I'll be writing in Ron Paul if necessary this year not because he's the lesser of evils, but because our government needs men of good character if this nation is going to survive.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2012 by Evil_Santa because: word correction.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Kali74
 


Imagine what Obama can do with this Power to his Political Rivals . Destroy their Careers and KILL any Resistance to his Policies..........In short , he becomes Americas first Caesar ..............

edit on 1-1-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)


ther is alot more than just this latest fiasco.

Obama Authorizes International Assassination Campaign
Top 25 of 2012 3diggsdigg121
ShareThe Obama administration has quietly put into practice an ‘incomplete idea’ left over from the Bush II presidency: creating a de facto ‘presidential international assassination program.’ Court documents, evidence offered by Human Rights Watch and a special United Nations report allege that US citizens suspected of encouraging “terror” had been put on “death lists.” These reports say Obama’s Director of National Intelligence assured a congressional hearing that the program was within the rights of the executive branch of the government and did not need to be revealed. At least two people are known to have been murdered by Central Intelligence Agency operatives under the program. When the program was challenged in a New York City court the judge refused to rule, saying, “There are circumstances in which the executive’s decision to kill U.S. citizens overseas is constitutionally committed to the political branches and judicially unreviewable.”

Sources:

“Judge Declines to Rule on Targeted Killings of U.S. Citizens,” William Fisher, Inter Press Service, Dec. 8, 2010.
ipsnorthamerica.net...

“Letter to President Obama on Targeted Killings and Drones,” Human Rights Watch, Dec. 7, 2010.
www.hrw.org...

“Confirmed: Obama Authorizes Assassination of U.S. Citizen,” Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, Apr. 7, 2010. www.salon.com...

Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Mar. 30, 2010. www.extrajudicialexecutions.org... america1

“Extrajudicial Killings: U.S. Government ‘Death List’ for American Citizens,” Francis A. Boyle, Global Research, February 10, 2010. www.globalresearch.ca...

Student Researchers: John M. Curtin, Molliann Zahm, Maria Rose, Vincent Caruso & George Antzoulis, Niagara University

Faculty Evaluator: Brian Martin Murphy, Niagara University; Mickey Huff, Diablo Valley College

source, project censored

eta, seems the transfered links do not work, please visit link to project censored.
edit on 1-1-2012 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


There are some views of his I do support but others no and they happen to be ones I can't look past. I had intended to vote for Obama as the lesser of evils but now he's done things I can't look past. All the other candidates are just insane jokes IMO, so I'm not voting.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
There is absolutely no mention of it on the White House website :
www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


It's the 1st link


whitehouse.gov



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
There is absolutely no mention of it on the White House website :
www.whitehouse.gov...




What did you expect from a slow, incompetent outfit like that ?

Maybe the pictures of Obama with a pen signing it and the quotes were all wrong.

This could be a master hoodwink.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


It's the 1st link


whitehouse.gov


Taking a closer look at the WH statement.

Does anyone actually believe that He wrote that all by himself?

I think he had help.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Well he claims be american, does he not fall under the same bill he is signing?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mountaintop
Well he claims be american, does he not fall under the same bill he is signing?


many believe he will fall ....

in november.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


Yes, that's the one !

They used the old "Statue of Liberty" play in American football



The Statue of Liberty is a trick play in American football, occasionally seen in high school football, college football and the NFL.


Good play indeed, but so is the a)counter-sweep, b)fake punt, c)fake field goal, d)quarterback option(faking a pass and running for a touchdown.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
This is interesting

Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
in other words step out of line we will get you, for we already have the right to do so.


Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
the DHS and TSA have done a good job at keeping us safe, no need for further actions unless it needs be.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


There are some views of his I do support but others no and they happen to be ones I can't look past. I had intended to vote for Obama as the lesser of evils but now he's done things I can't look past. All the other candidates are just insane jokes IMO, so I'm not voting.


Do people know anything about:

a)constitution party b)socialist party c)communist party d)green party e)libertarian party ???

If no then perhaps people should ask themselves why not....

Someone is keeping information from us by a)ignoring b)downplaying alternative choices!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   




Spoken on behalf of obama by spusa...........

Just play the McCarthy card and scare everyone #less about socialism and communism.

Then pretend they are the same by calling them marxists!




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I actually don't blame the POTUS for signing this into law. We as Americans have allowed our representatives the free reign to do as they will. Most of us are more concerned about what he said/she said, whose made the playoffs, and so and so is on 'Dancing with the Stars'. We the People have allowed the criminals to run the show on Capital Hill. It is our collective apathy that has given us NDAA and not just one man. How do we change this? Well, we are running out of time. EVERY vote counts! Use your mind and heart when you decide your vote. Do not use vengeance, hate, and fear to cloud your vote. Don't think for one moment that the founding fathers were not afraid when they formed this nation. Get involved and WRITE LETTERS TO OUR ELECTED SERVANTS!


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson (American President)

edit on 1-1-2012 by Siberbat because:



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join