Obama issues another signing statement

[alarimer]

This is NOT change I can get behind. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Obama decides he will ignore provisions of the war spending bill that would apply pressure to the World Bank on labor and environmental standards. What kind of Democrat is this guy? I am angrier at Obama than I ever was at Bush and I didn't think it was possible to be angrier. You can make all kinds of excuses but there is NO justification for this. NONE. The World Bank and IMF have been destroying developing nations for years. See Confessions of an Economic Hit Man for details. in any case, saying he will simply ignore portions of the law HE SIGNED is simply wrong. It is breathtakingly arrogant. This is NOT change and I plan on never voting for this lying sack of shit ever again.


http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/06/29/obama-issues-another-signing-statement-will-ignore-provisions-of-war-spending-bill/

[tridim]

1. Well you managed to get two Obama-hate buzz-phrases into the first sentence

So I stopped reading there.

[alarimer]

38. How is this action any different from Bush's signing statement?

Both of them decided to ignore the law.

Obama has NOT earned my support and makes me angrier every single day.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

8. so . . . . DUers are no longer allowed to get angry at the President?

From the link, I would say the emotion is justified. Can't say I agree with this either.

[Cant trust em]

15. I think that when people don't support Democrats it's time for them to go. nt

[The Straight Story]

17. So you supproted lieberman when he was a dem

:shrug:

[Cant trust em]

21. I never had to vote for him.

I don't consider his VP stint as voting for him.

[DrDan]

25. did you provide any financial support to the ticket?

[Cant trust em]

31. Probably not. I was only 20 at the time and not particularly politically active.

Even if I did, That would be a pretty tepid support for Lieberman.

I should actually clarify my earlier post. I would likely vote for the democrat we nominated for the ticket. You only get a chance every 4 years and I do support picking the lesser of two evils.

[DrDan]

18. I did not read in the OP that the poster did not support Democrats.

[Cant trust em]

20. "I plan on never voting for this lying sack of shit ever again."

The president is the head of the party.

I know where you're going with this, but I think that not voting for the president is over the top.

[DrDan]

24. and I think blind-loyalty with no room for dissention is "over the top"

too much like our nemesis.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Don't you think your strawmen are a little over the top?

No, of course you don't.

[DrDan]

27. if it fits . . .

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Strawmen never fit, they are by their very nature dishonest.

So can the Monty Python "help, help we're being oppressed. Oh what a world! Oh the humanity" melodrama teabag schtick.

It was pathetic back in November, and it just gets more and more pathetic the more it gets dragged out by you people.

[DrDan]

29. "you people" - now exactly what does that mean ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Whatever the hell you want it to.

I really don't care what you people think.

[DrDan]

34. well - as I said earlier - "if it fits"

and in your case, a perfect fit

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Am I oppressing you, DrDan? Am I domineering your right to dissent?

Am I violating you?

[DrDan]

37. I am just trying to be supportive of the OPer's right to dissent - which

you apparently have a problem with

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Yes, yes, you're a real american hero.

God bless you, Dr. Dan.

[Cant trust em]

33. Isn't this "Democratic" underground?

It's not progressive underground. It's not liberal underground. It's Democratic Underground. If people don't want to adhere to party labels, then that's fine. But that's not what this website is about. It says so right in the rules.

[DrDan]

36. here is what the rules say . . .

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."


"other progressives"
"not affiliated with the Democratic Party"
"generally supportive" - not blind, unbending support

[Cant trust em]

42. I guess I don't really disagree with you.

I'd just prefer for people's criticisms to stay within some bounds of decorum and not jump the shark.

[DrDan]

44. I agree with that. But sometimes we get SO angry, it just happens.

[Cant trust em]

46. I should just do a better job of picking the posts to respond to.

I'm an easy person to flame and I almost always take the bait.

I appreciate dissent, but sometimes I think a good point can get lost in emotion.

[alarimer]

40. Support is earned; it is not automatic just because someone has a D after their name.

EVEN the President. He has done NOTHING to earn my support and, by continuing Bush policies and doing things like this signing statements, may not ever get it again.

I am sorry I voted for him. I am sorry that Democrats no longer stand up for their party's principles but care more about corporate bribes (that is what campaign finance is, after all, just legalized bribery).

Why can I not be angry that someone who promised change (and apparently hoodwinked a lot of otherwise smart people) is not delivering on that change? He has sunk into Clintonian triangulation bullshit. And is constantly breaking campaign promises. And I am supposed to just shut up about it?

You people may like not thinking for yourself but "you're either with us or against us" was wrong when Bushites said it and it is wrong now.

[Cant trust em]

43. Get over yourself. You're not the only one "thinking for yourself"

I can practically smell your bullshit coming out of my computer's speakers.

[sandnsea]

9. +1

I always wanted to say that but I thought it would get me banned.

[madokie]

3. I wonder if that is even true

[walkaway]

4. OK then. See ya! n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Doesn't sound right to me, either.

[RoyGBiv]

6. This was a week ago ...

... and you're outraged today?

It's often helpful to read the signing statement. The pertinent last paragraph says this:

However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

I don't actually see the word "ignore" in there.

[sisters6]

14. It was last Friday. Why are outraged that poster is outraged

today. Besides the article was just posted on june 29--yesterday.

[RoyGBiv]

16. I don't care about the article ...

OnEdit: Forgot to say what I originally intended to say.

The signing statement was June 24, 2009.

This was mentioned in many places last week and was discussed here. The statement is on the White House website, and you can read the sections in question via the LOC. This is what I've done.

Other than that, please explain to me where I have expressed "outrage" over anyone's "outrage."

Words have meanings. I believe the poster referring to Obama as a "sack of shit" may rightly be described as expressing outrage.

The person questioning that poster without the use of hyperbole and profanity ... not clear on that one.

[lamp_shade]

7. You never supported him in the first place. What's new here?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PSPS]

11. You didn't get the memo

Apparently, only Obama sycophants are welcome at DU anymore.

Having said that, though, this particular bush-lite action of U-bama's seems to be one of the less infuriating to me only because trying to influence IMF negoiations through a war spending bill seems somewhat disconnected.

[RoyGBiv]

13. It's not a Bush-lite action ...

It's a Presidential action.

Presidents issue signing statements. They've been doing it for some time. They typically do it in instances where the interpretation of how the Executive is to enforce the law could or would interfere with the Executive's constitutional authority. The traditional intent of the singing statement is to indicate how the Executive intends to enforce laws or sections of laws that fit within this cloudy area.

What Bush did was so different from this it doesn't even belong in the same description. Bush didn't issue "singing statements." He issued decrees.

[bkozumplik]

23. agreed

I do have to say, Obama has a really long ways to go before he could ever begin to be as ridiculously awful as McCain/Palin would have been, so thats something small to be cheery about. (But imagine the humor we are missing out on).

I think people who tell other people to get off DU because they are critical of Obama's activities should talk about the issues. We need a democratically/Progressively centered forum for issues, not a strictly Teen Beat-Obama Edition. A movement (or a site, or a person even) who tolerates no introspection is doomed to fail.

I am outraged that Obama is not enforcing our existing laws regarding war crimes. I think its disgusting. If enough people think that, maybe he will feel some pressure to do the right thing. See? thats how this all works (or sort of kinda works. Or is supposed to work, anyways...). citizens are entitled to an opinion, and civil discussions about opinions can be valuable. Blogs which talk about nothing but the depth of your love for Obama are just not valuable.

[alarimer]

45. Well it isn't the first one, though.

The IMF and the World Bank are pretty much evil organizations that have nearly destroyed countries with debt. Simply asking them to take considerations of labor and environment into account is a good first step. I'm not sure why he has a problem with that.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

59. I don't think he has a problem with it as such

i just don't think he approves/agrees that Congress can force him to do so, its up to him to decide how to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations according to the authority and power that his office grants him.

As such i fully agree with him on this since congress is encroaching on territory that is outside their purview(?)

[dixiegrrrrl]

48. "only Obama sycophants are welcome " NOT. see below.

from Skinner's thread of 6/24/09:

"A few people have expressed confusion about what is permitted here now that Obama is president.

* Any and all substantive criticism of Barack Obama and his policies is permitted. And by "any and all substantive criticism" we mean all of it -- no issue is off limits.

* Expressions of dismay, disappointment or disagreement with Barack Obama or his policies are permitted.

* But insults, name-calling, or other expressions of contempt toward Barack Obama or his supporters are not welcome.


There is a part of me that is a little disappointed (but not surprised) that this even needs to be said. Even if you don't agree with President Obama on a number of issues, I guess I kinda thought that everyone here would consider themselves -- on some level -- to be among his supporters. Or, at very least, I didn't think that any DUer would want to deliberately use the same type of language one would expect to hear from tea-baggers and Freepers.

It is our intention that ALL substantive criticism of Barack Obama be permitted here. If you believe there are any issues on which you are not permitted to criticize Barack Obama (or any Democrat) please post in this thread and tell me the specific issue -- I will gladly address your concerns. Similarly, if anyone persists in spreading the falsehood that criticism of Barack Obama is now forbidden on DU, I believe it is not unreasonable to ask that person to please identify what substantive criticism they are no longer able to share.

One more VERY IMPORTANT point.

This post has focused on the limits of acceptable behavior when criticizing Barack Obama or those of us who support him. But I want to be absolutely clear: This does not mean "anything goes" for those DUers who defend him from criticism. Indeed, we have knee-jerk bullies on all sides of this issue.
Just as DUers should be able to support and defend Barack Obama here on DU without being attacked or having their motives questioned, DUers should also be able to share legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned. "

and here is the link, which seems to be needed in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5524913

[FrenchieCat]

12. Whoa!

"I am angrier at Obama than I ever was at Bush and I didn't think it was possible to be angrier."

How stupid are you?

[Cant trust em]

22. Issuing a signing statement about financial institutions

apparently warrants the same amount of outrage as starting a war killing thousands.

That just doesn't jive to me.

on edit: it warrants greater outrage.

[alarimer]

41. I am angry at someone who breaks campaign promises left and right.

This is not the first signing statement ignoring parts of laws he had done by the way.

It is about holding the World Bank accountable for protecting labor and the environment, which apparently he has decided are not important enough.

[4lbs]

50. No, it's about tying the President's hands when dealing with foreign entities and governments by

telling him what stances to take at all times.

The President is given specific power by the US Constitution to deal in foreign policy.

ONLY THE PRESIDENT.

Not the Congress. Not the US Supreme Court.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

This part of the bill that directs the President to always take a certain stance is quite possibly unconstitutional.

[SpartanDem]

52. Bullshit the statement doesn't say those things

it's been posted in this very thread. Show me where it says he's going to ignore the law

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Sucks to be you.

[tritsofme]

30. Stuck on stupid. nt

[Toasterlad]

39. Funny How He Picks and Chooses What Laws He Has to Obey.

Gotta fight to protect DOMA, it's the law. Can't suspend DADT, it's the law. But corporations shouldn't be shackled by laws.

[4lbs]

49. That wasn't the intent of his statement. It was not wanting to be FORCED to take any position.

The President makes foreign policy. Not the Congress.

It's stated exactly to that point in the US Constitution.

Congress, by passing this bill, is essentially getting into the foreign policy business by telling the President how to interact with foreign entities on various matters.

[Toasterlad]

51. Then Why Didn't He Veto It?

[4lbs]

56. Because, except for this particular section, the rest of the bill is what the President wanted.

So, why veto a bill that is 95% of what you want?

Just issue a signing statement not agreeing to the 5%, especially when that 5% conflicts with the powers expressly given to you under the US Constitution.

[Toasterlad]

57. Sounds a Lot Like What Bush Used to Do. Remember Him?

The guy everyone hated because he took too much power? Seems like it's okay for Obama to do it, though, as long as he's not using it to benefit the homos.

[4lbs]

58. How is he (Obama) taking too much power? The signing statement is just reaffirming the powers

already given to him by the US Constitution.

Read it sometime, both the statement and the Constitution. All of them.

The President has the express and SOLE power to engage in foreign policy matters and international affairs of state.

Not the Congress, not the US Supreme Court. ONLY the President of the United States and his Secretary of State directed by him.

EDIT: You can also add the UN Ambassador, as directed by the President.

The World Bank, IMF, and UN are included in that.

So, when a bill, passed by Congress, directs the President to take a certain stance internationally and with respect to foreign entities, it is in violation of the US Constitution. Congress would then be telling the President how to interact, what positions to take. Essentially hand-tying what he can do. Once again, that is AGAINST the US Constitution.

Congress is allowed to only discuss and pass bills that apply domestically, not internationally, with very few exceptions. One such exception is a Declaration of War. However, in each exception case, --> the President must first ASK <-- the Congress to get involved. Congress itself can't simply interject itself into foreign policy or international state matters.

So, when Congress just passed a bill in which a small part of it tries to engage in international matters (namely the World Bank and IMF), that's overstepping it's bounds as outlined in the US Constitution.

The President just reaffirmed he, and he alone, has the power in that arena, not Congress.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[4lbs]

47. So the President issues a signing statement where he won't cede to being FORCED to take a certain

position on international affairs and foreign policy matters.

He wants to be able to negotiate deals with foreign governments as necessary, and this section of the bill would hamper that by FORCING him to always take a certain position. So, he issues a signing statement not agreeing to be FORCED to take a certain position at all times.

Nevermind that Congress, by passing a bill, in which a part of it directs the President to take a certain position at all times, is interfering in foreign policy matters, AGAINST THE US CONSTITUTION.

What's the outrage again?

[RoyGBiv]

53. There are people responding here ...

... of whom I am certain were not aware that signing statements almost precisely like the one Obama issued today have a history going back to the early 18th century and is a traditional of Presidential authority when laws interfere or could interfere with his constitutional authority.

[omega minimo]

54. This is why Impeachment should not have been OFF THE TABLE.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

60. would you mind elaborating on that? n/t