DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Obama Wont Abide 2011 Budget Bill Section

**layevymed** · 04-17-2011, 09:29 PM

Often, it seems that President Obama has never met Candidate Obama.

Matt

It's actually consistent with Candidate Obama. He never took a position against them as a practice, just what he said was the Bush Admin's abuse of them.

Obama rebukes Bush on signing statements
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor March 9, 2009 06:19 PM

Rebuking his predecessor for the second time today, President Obama declared that he will not use "signing statements" to disregard parts of laws because he disagrees on policy grounds, but only when he strongly believes the provisions are unconstitutional.

. . .

"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements," wrote Obama, who also overturned Bush's restrictions today on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," Obama pledged.

The president also promised to "take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable" to let Congress know of his constitutional concerns about bills before they pass. He also said he would clearly lay out his constitutional objection in any signing statements he does issue; Bush was harshly criticized for issuing signing statements with vague reasons.

A series of stories in the Globe, which eventually won the Pulitzer Prize, journalism's highest honor, pointed out that Bush used signing statements to disobey hundreds of bills approved by Congress on a wide range of issues.

. . .

During the presidential campaign, Obama blasted Bush for how he used signing statements, but reserved the right to issue them, himself, in a more restrained way. Republican presidential John McCain said he would not use them at all.

. . .

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs asserted today that Obama will return to the traditional way the statements have been used "for two centuries in order for presidents to make known constitutional problems with ideas that are in legislation without necessarily dealing a veto to the entire piece of legislation."

. . . (bolding added)

Obama rebukes Bush on signing statements - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

During the campaign, this is an issue I put on McCain's side on the balancing scale of my considerations given their respective positions as bolded. Like a line item veto, I believe signing statements are an ultra vires executive act and void on their face given there is no constitutional authority for them whatsoever. That's even the case for what Obama and other past Presidents felt were 'legitimate' uses of them....an executive can't give what they don't have, and that's the power to attach a signing statement to a bill.

As a candidate, Obama did pay careful attention to how questions were phrased to offer his answers in a way maximising his viewpoint and especially on what he felt were Bush Admin abuses, e.g.,

YouTube - Obama on Presidential Signing Statements

" . . . do you promise not to use Presidential signage (sic) to get your way?" His answer is consistent with his views to date. The question, however, was sloppy and didn't pin him down on their usage overall. Candidates listen to questions and calculate carefully.

The public is part of the problem for all the complaints about politicians. First, they ought to take a deeper look and examination into politicians. Anyone doing proper homework on candidates would have picked up on Obama's position accurately or McCain's. Second, many voters exercise denial, as likely some Obama supporters did by choosing what they wanted to hear or read rather than what was said or written or done by him. Third, political enemies have no problem spinning for their own ends, as some are doing with his actual views on signing statements.

I agree with Obama that the Bush Admin abused the practice more so than other Presidents and he has not done that and reverted back to what prior POTUSs have done. As stated, though, it's my view that such statements shouldn't be issued at all, period.

04-17-2011, 09:29 PM	#13
layevymed Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 503 Senior Member	Often, it seems that President Obama has never met Candidate Obama. Matt It's actually consistent with Candidate Obama. He never took a position against them as a practice, just what he said was the Bush Admin's abuse of them. Obama rebukes Bush on signing statements Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor March 9, 2009 06:19 PM Rebuking his predecessor for the second time today, President Obama declared that he will not use "signing statements" to disregard parts of laws because he disagrees on policy grounds, but only when he strongly believes the provisions are unconstitutional. . . . "There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements," wrote Obama, who also overturned Bush's restrictions today on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. "I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," Obama pledged. The president also promised to "take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable" to let Congress know of his constitutional concerns about bills before they pass. He also said he would clearly lay out his constitutional objection in any signing statements he does issue; Bush was harshly criticized for issuing signing statements with vague reasons. A series of stories in the Globe, which eventually won the Pulitzer Prize, journalism's highest honor, pointed out that Bush used signing statements to disobey hundreds of bills approved by Congress on a wide range of issues. . . . During the presidential campaign, Obama blasted Bush for how he used signing statements, but reserved the right to issue them, himself, in a more restrained way. Republican presidential John McCain said he would not use them at all. . . . White House spokesman Robert Gibbs asserted today that Obama will return to the traditional way the statements have been used "for two centuries in order for presidents to make known constitutional problems with ideas that are in legislation without necessarily dealing a veto to the entire piece of legislation." . . . (bolding added) Obama rebukes Bush on signing statements - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com During the campaign, this is an issue I put on McCain's side on the balancing scale of my considerations given their respective positions as bolded. Like a line item veto, I believe signing statements are an ultra vires executive act and void on their face given there is no constitutional authority for them whatsoever. That's even the case for what Obama and other past Presidents felt were 'legitimate' uses of them....an executive can't give what they don't have, and that's the power to attach a signing statement to a bill. As a candidate, Obama did pay careful attention to how questions were phrased to offer his answers in a way maximising his viewpoint and especially on what he felt were Bush Admin abuses, e.g., YouTube - Obama on Presidential Signing Statements " . . . do you promise not to use Presidential signage (sic) to get your way?" His answer is consistent with his views to date. The question, however, was sloppy and didn't pin him down on their usage overall. Candidates listen to questions and calculate carefully. The public is part of the problem for all the complaints about politicians. First, they ought to take a deeper look and examination into politicians. Anyone doing proper homework on candidates would have picked up on Obama's position accurately or McCain's. Second, many voters exercise denial, as likely some Obama supporters did by choosing what they wanted to hear or read rather than what was said or written or done by him. Third, political enemies have no problem spinning for their own ends, as some are doing with his actual views on signing statements. I agree with Obama that the Bush Admin abused the practice more so than other Presidents and he has not done that and reverted back to what prior POTUSs have done. As stated, though, it's my view that such statements shouldn't be issued at all, period.
	Quote