Democrats scold Obama on signing statements

[kpete]

Source: Boston Globe

Democrats scold Obama on signing statements

President Obama is taking a hit from fellow Democrats on another issue -- the use of signing statements on bills passed by Congress.

In a letter today to Obama, four senior House Democrats scolded him, saying he is being too much like former President George W. Bush in using the statements to ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution, the Associated Press reports.

The House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The letter was signed by Representatives David Obey of Wisconsin; chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee; and Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

Congressional Democrats were harshly critical of Bush's signing statements, which they argued violated the constitutional separation of powers. Critics contended Bush used such statements to expand his power, particularly on national security, by ignoring the intent or certain provisions of bills properly passed by Congress. (Charlie Savage, then with the Globe, won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for documenting Bush's actions."

Obama also assailed Bush on the issue during the presidential campaign.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/democrats_scold.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Pot to kettle

or Animal Farm - six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[montanacowboy]

2. The more things "change"

the more they stay the same; I am getting pretty sick and tired of this carryover shit from the thug administration

Doesn't Obama know that the more he uses and defends Bush policies the more trust he will lose with the American people. I just cannot imagine what the hell this administration is doing.

[clarence swinney]

6. AMAZED

DISGUSTED

GET RID OF RAHM EMANUEL ETC

LIVE UP TO CAMPAIGN PROMISES

LIKE LORD WILLIAM OF HOPE

58 PROMISES IN BOOK "PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST"AND TOOK ACTION ON 56 IN FIRST TWO YEARS

WASH POST LISTED 162 CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND HE TOOK ACTION ON 96% IN FIRST TWO YEARS

MADE AN EFFORT ON ALL EXCEPT MIDDLE CLS TAX CUT WHICH WAS NOT DONE BECAUSE BUSH DEFICIT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN EXPECTED
SO HAD A CHOICE OF DOING IT OR CUTTING DEFICIT SO CHOSE WHAT WAS BEST FOR AMERICA

[e-mail]

[Tansy_Gold]

15. Please don't yell (all caps) and please don't refer to a former elected president

by an inherited title. I don't think he would like it.




Tansy Gold

[MarjorieG]

3. One signing statement, for world money obligations we have after causing a global crisis?

Seems Obama's admin will spend the entire 4-8 years trying to fix Bush problems, never getting to what he wants the way he wants it.

[montanto]

4. Scold away.

[Robb]

5. Oh, FFS.

I learned more about this nonsense issue in ten minutes on this DU thread than these idiots.

God forbid a Constitutional scholar weigh in when he thinks a law might be unconstitutional. :eyes:

[pattmarty]

7. More of change we can believe in. I can hardly wait to see the........

..............the "final" healthcare bill. Six months in and if everything so far is change, we got fucked.

[JDPriestly]

8. The Constitution expressly grants to Congress the right to authorize

budget expenditures. Congress can attach any strings it wants. The president's authority over foreign policy is, under the Constitution, not unique to it. Congress has a number of powers that concern foreign policy including but not limited to approving treaties, declaring war, powers over aspects of piracy and the takings of prisoners. The list of Congress' powers in foreign policy -- powers specific to it and not granted to the president -- is pretty long.

We are headed toward the kind of government that existed in Roman after Julius Cesar. We either end that trend or we will end up like the Romans did -- with a huge empire and a military dictatorship at home. We, like the Romans, are basically dominated by our military.

[bvar22]

14. We're pretty close to that right now.

We can't afford REAL Health Care for our citizens, but are building Multi-Billion Dollar castles in the Middle East and INCREASING Military Spending.

[24601]

19. Congress' power is not absolute - putting an item into an

appropriations or authorizations bill also can be fatally flawed. For example, "No appropriation shall be used to pay any President who pardons an offense against the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate" would be unconstitutional and any President should issue a signing statement that the provision is an invalid intrusion into Presidential Article II powers.

When a bill becomes a law, there is nothing to guarantee that the Executive Branch sees it the same was as the Legislative Branch. When they disagree, both views are equally valid until the Courts interpret the law.

[JDPriestly]

20. But the appropriation limitation that Congress enacted this time was

quite legitimate. The president has no right to ignore it. The president's power over foreign policy is not unlimited. As I pointed out, the Congress has quite a bit of power over not only foreign policy but also the military and the issuance of money -- all matters of concern in what is going on in the legislation we are discussing.

[24601]

23. Oh, I agree with you on this. I was just pontificating on signing

statements overall to point out that the branches of government are supposed to be co-equal (except that in reality, the judiciary trumps all except for impeachment and removal from office). Signing statements are not inherently bad - they just mark territory that will be ripe for interpretation by the courts. It's how they are used that can cross the line. On the other hand, Congress can overreach as well and a law with unconstitutional provisions is just as bad as an inappropriate signing statement.

The key to effective reform is transparency. If the law is in the public domain (and some aren't because of classification) then an accompanying signing statement should be invalid unless it's published along with the law.

I apologize for any confusion.

[Doctor_J]

9. I get the feeling that many Dems preferred having Bush as prez

they could keep their heads down, watch the country go down the toilet, and be secure in getting re-elected just because they're Dems and Bush is a total failure.

Now that we have a real, engaged leader who wants to improve the country, they'er completely lost and out of their element. Instead of directing their ridicule at anti-American psychotics like Bachmann, DeMint, and Inhofe, they join in the Big Media game of bashing everything Obama does.

[webDude]

10. Kill the messenger, ignore the message, right?

[Iowa]

17. They have all earned the ridicule...

"Instead of directing their ridicule at anti-American psychotics like Bachmann, DeMint, and Inhofe, they join in the Big Media game of bashing everything Obama does."

Nix the hyperbole. Nobody is bashing "everything" Obama does - just the selling-out part.

Similarly, it isn't an either/or proposition. They have all earned "bashing" in varying degrees.

Furthermore, while the "psychotics" you mention are expected to be loony, Obama isn't expected to buy into their insanity or emulate their behavior.

And finally, a reasonable argument can be made that the loony-right is actually representing their constituency (the plutocracy) quite well, while Obama is selling-out his. An enemy vs. a traitor... tough call. They both deserve contempt.

But for some it's just easier to buy into the good-cop, bad-cop con the two parties are manipulating them with. If that's what it takes to make sense of it...

[99 Percent Sure]

11. In case no one noticed, the Democrats NEVER made negative

statements against dumb butt Bailin' Palin the She-Wolf of Quitters. Why, you may ask, is that?

It's because they are just like her; corrupt, dumb, and wrapped in hypocrisy and personal and political self-interests.

She is them, and they are her, which is why those blue dogs seem to have so much sway.

I predicted that the Dems would give President Obama more trouble than they EVER gave Shrub and, so far, I've been 100% correct. Dims also have issues of race that they haven't quite dealt with. With Shrub the Monster, they kept their heads down, kissed his behind and did exactly as they were told, whether in the minority or with a majority.

Many like to say that it is the Congressional repugs that are wicked, racist and dumb, but birds of a feather flock together--you don't see sparrows hanging out with parrots--and there are plenty of Congressional dims (not SIC) who mirror their repug counterparts; they're just much less brazen in their visible disgust with the president, preferring to throw rocks and hide their hands. They smile in his face, but all the time they're trying to make him lose his place.

I have stifled my disappointment with some of President Obama's actions such as bailing out Wall Street and the banks at the expense of taxpayers, amping up the Afghanistan War and, until very recently, mealy-mouthing, IMO, on Health Care Reform and the public option, for three reasons: (1) on Election Night, he said in his speech that we're not always going to agree with or like his policies, (2) I believe he walked into a terrible mess of epic proportions, the extent of which we will never know, and (3) because he's only been in office 6 months and a couple of days.

So this signing statements thing to me, at this juncture, with all that is going on elsewhere, is a non-issue since, as I understand it, it was the number of signing statements as well as the content that Obama and the dims took issue with re Shrub.

Really, after the nightmare of Shrub, I'd rather have President Obama issuing executive orders via signing statements than any of the Congressional dims, if they had the power to do so. I believe that President Obama's wisdom and knowledge is much more trustworthy, although he is in no way perfect, and never will be.

[Doctor_J]

13. They give Obama more trouble than Smirk because it gets on TV

anyone who criticized Chimpenfuhrer was banned from Big Media. Bashing Obama is a guaranteed TV spot. and it makes their brainwashed constituents feel like they're doing something.

How the hell this kind of shit is going to help get Health Care is too abstract for my PhD brain.

[dolphindance]

12. Hey petey, ever got any good news to post? Yeah, I thought so. (n/t)

[2Design]

16. kpete is a scholar here and finds some real gems - might want to

lurk awhile before lobbing things at people or there might be a tombstone

[Vidar]

18. Good.

[OneBlueSky]

21. one of my fantasies about an Obama presidency was that . . .

one of his first acts as president would be to declare all of Bush's "signing statements" null and void . . . instead, he's using the very same tactic that Bush used to circumvent the intent of Congress . . .

the fault here, of course, is with Congress itself, which never called Bush on the signing statements when he was president . . . thus leaving the door open for future presidents to continue the practice, citing Bush's actions as a "precedent" . . . never thought that Obama would be the first to actually DO that, though . . .

just goes to show ya . . . the more things change, the more they stay the same . . .

[Senator]

22. K&+R