David Swanson on Obama and signing statements

[bigtree]

Signing Statementing Our Way to Empire

{snip}

. . . the Constitution says precisely this about your supposed "ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations":

"He shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

As you know, your predecessor made a treaty with Iraq for three years of war, and did not seek the advice or consent of the Senate or the Congress as a whole. He thereby shredded this section of the Constitution and seized as well the power to make war, which -- according to the same Constitution -- also belongs to Congress.

When you were campaigning for office you favored Congressional "approval" of the treaty President Bush made with Iraq. As president-elect, you favored Congressional "review." As president you went silent for a month-and-a-half and then produced this statement defending your supposed right to do exactly what Bush did without Congress "limiting" or "interfering" in your supposed Constitutional power to do precisely what the Constitution denies you the right to do unless two-thirds of the Senators present permit it . . .

full article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Signing-Statementing-Our-W-by-David-Swanson-090312-223.html


(DS will likely post this later, but I thought it was interesting enough to pass it along right now.)

[babylonsister]

1. THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS

Just because Bush abused signing statements doesn't mean Obama will. I guess we'll see.


THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS

Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional, or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

[flyarm]

2. ahhh Obama won't abuse signing statements..he will be transparent..right????????

Obama’s Signing Statement Disappears Whistleblowers
Thu Mar-12-09 10:22 AM
Obama’s Signing Statement Disappears Whistleblowers
By: emptywheel Thursday March 12, 2009 6:55 am

......................

The provision I'm most worried about, however, is one on whistleblowers. You see, the President who has promised transparency, apparently doesn't want transparency to Congress when an executive agency fucks up.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/politics/12signing...

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday issued his first signing statement, reserving a right to bypass dozens of provisions in a $410 billion government spending bill even as he signed it into law.

..............

He also raised concerns about a section that establishes whistle-blower protections for federal employees who give information to Congress.

“I do not interpret this provision,” he wrote, “to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.”


This strikes at the heart of efforts to fix some of our intelligence failures and abuses by making it possible for Congress to learn about them before it's too late.

I guess all that transparency Obama talked about was only for the things he wanted us to learn about.

more at:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/12/obamas-sig... /

[babylonsister]

4. I read it; Marcy's worried. I get it. Everyone at FDL is, and they're

very vocal about it, as is their right.

[bigtree]

3. just take the time to read David's objections

He's very specific and makes perfect sense in his assertions that the president is, in fact, constructing his own rationales for ignoring or 'interpreting' laws he signs, in contradiction of the Constitution (even as he erroneously cites it as justification for his disregard of the letter of the law).

I find the 'trust him' type of defense against specific complaints such as DS's to be tiresome and a bit disconcerting. Can you address his specific points?

[babylonsister]

5. I agree with many things David Swanson says, writes, etc.

But he has nothing yet to apply his concerns to. Same with FDL. They're full of 'what if's', 'might happens', etc., that haven't happened yet. I'll be the first to jump on board when and if these statements are used for something that's considered unconstitutional.

I see nothing wrong with trust unless and until it's broken. But I'm not wishing that happens, and I know Swanson isn't either.

I do think many people were so invested in bringing down the previous admin that they're still in that mode. I'd love to see some positive stuff once in awhile instead of the unrelenting negative because, as David said, McCain would have been a nightmare.

[bigtree]

8. positive stuff?

There's plenty of that. I'll tell you what. I'll bet that it wasn't sunshine and butterflies which brought most folks to this forum. It's been amazingly hard to make some folks understand that some of us care more about the issues which compelled us to speak out and advocate than we do about the personalities and politicians.

By the way, I put up a 'positive' thread yesterday and spent my spare time kicking it up myself. I think my time is best spent concentrating on those issues which have yet to be resolved and are in peril or transition. It just so happens that the issues I care most about are co-opted by these conservative influences which appear to be dominating the decision-making, so far. You make your own judgments based on what you believe and are concerned with. I understand that. But, it sucks to be me right now. I'd like to have generated as much confidence in this administration to turn away from my concerns as you seem to have in your 'positive' perspective and patience with them.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. ROFLMAO!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bushmeister0]

7. This bit is troubling, too.

"Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only 'such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient' (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory."

As Swanson points out, "only" isn't in the clause he quotes.

Kind of changes the meaning altogether, no?

I'm no lawyer, but I've always wondered about this; these signing statements are designed to say basically that the president and Congress have a disagreement about what the constitution says about the law in question. But, it seems neither side ever actually hash out the correct interpretation.

You'd figure Congress would take him to court or something to get the proper ruling on whether or not the executive has the right to sidestep the law, which Congress, after all, only has the right to make under the constitution.

You'd think if there were so many flaws in the law, he'd just veto it.

[bigtree]

9. I've always understood that the court looks to Congress' interpretation of laws

. . . when making a judgment on them. Judges throw out cases and Congress goes back to work crafting laws which comport with the court's guidance in the rejections.

I wonder if Congress really considers their budget request requirements 'wishes', or precatory?

[bigtree]

10. .