[tinamasak]

One part of it at least.

Section 2262 of the Act would prohibit the use of funds for several positions that involve providing advice directly to the President. The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority. The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it

Read more: Obama signing statement: despite law, I can do what I want on czars | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment Signing statements arent legally binding of course. He cant nullify a law, only refuse to obey it. In which case he can be punished. Good luck with that. Lets not forget his campaign against signing statements.


“Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” Obama said.

“That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution. And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress,” Obama said.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/ob...#ixzz1JhJPLjj4

[GogaMegaPis]

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

Matt

[Lolita Palmer]

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

Matt

Candidate Obama is due back in town soon. Should be interesting.

Watching elections in America is like listening to a battered wife explaining why she's giving "hubby" another chance.

[Peertantyb]

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

Matt

You can bet your bottom dollar he'll meet Candidate Obama when the debates begin. The Pub's will make sure of that.

[incizarry]

Actually, Congress cannot just pass any law. The other branches are free to ignore a law if that law attempts to take away their constitutional powers. Congress is not the superior branch. It cannot legislate away the powers of the other branches, anymore than the President can dissolve Congress by executive order. And the President won't be punished unless there are enough votes for impeachment, because the courts refuse to get involved in such disputes between the executive and legislative branch.

[tinamasak]

Actually, Congress cannot just pass any law. The other branches are free to ignore a law if that law attempts to take away their constitutional powers. Congress is not the superior branch. It cannot legislate away the powers of the other branches, anymore than the President can dissolve Congress by executive order. And the President won't be punished unless there are enough votes for impeachment, because the courts refuse to get involved in such disputes between the executive and legislative branch.

Actually, The constitution says they can pass any law they want.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. That has nothing to do with whether those laws are constitutional. You are right though, the constitution does not give the Pres power to dissolve congress.

[incizarry]

Well yeah, they can pass the law, but that doesn't mean it has to be obeyed. Presidents routinely issue signing statements to protect their powers from Congressional infringement.

[ignonsoli]

One part of it at least.



Signing statements arent legally binding of course. He cant nullify a law, only refuse to obey it. In which case he can be punished. Good luck with that. Lets not forget his campaign against signing statements.

It continues to amaze and disappoint that nobody seems to care about these things. Another ironic gem from that article -

“Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the statement says. Typical liberalspeak where the actions are exactly opposed to the words.

"We need to create jobs so we'll kill the economy"

"We hate prejudice so we'll foster racial divides"

"I value the separation of powers, so I'll ignore it."

[amehoubFomo]

"We hate prejudice so we'll foster racial divides"

ahoy CharlesDavenport,

as someone who be essentially, a racist, i can well see why this kinda rhetoric would vex ye so.

- MeadHallPirate

[Noilemaillilm]

Given his record so far, If Boehner tried to impeach Obama, he just might end up making him President for Life.

[italertb]

I don't like presidential signing statements. Either the president should sign the bill or veto it, but signing statements are like having your cake and eating it too.
Does anyone know if the practice has been challenged in the courts? It's hard for me to believe that the SC would approve of it.

[tinamasak]

Well yeah, they can pass the law, but that doesn't mean it has to be obeyed. Presidents routinely issue signing statements to protect their powers from Congressional infringement.

It has to be obeyed because its the law. Hes a free individual, though. He can choose to break the law. And suffer the consequences.

[layevymed]

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.

[layevymed]

I don't like presidential signing statements. Either the president should sign the bill or veto it, but signing statements are like having your cake and eating it too.
Does anyone know if the practice has been challenged in the courts? It's hard for me to believe that the SC would approve of it.

They've never gotten to any meaningful judicial review to my knowledge and certainly not SCOTUS review like the line item veto did. I feel likewise...the federal executive is only empowered to sign, veto or take no action with a bill where it either becomes law or expires depending on timing issues. That's it. The executive has a limited set of powers and what's given is all they have. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others").

[layevymed]

It has to be obeyed because its the law. Hes a free individual, though. He can choose to break the law. And suffer the consequences.

Those provisions aren't the law if they are indeed unconstitutional. Unconstitutional enactments are void ab initio (on their face) and never have the effect of law. It's the judiciary that must ultimately decide that fact, however.

IMO, it's a pretty interesting issue. Congress does have the power of the purse; however, whether or not it can exercise that in a manner that violates separation of powers--and that seems clearly implicated here--is an interesting conundrum. My initial first impression thoughts off the top of my head--and I haven't delved into it deeply yet at all--are that they are unconstitutional. It's one thing to defund something that the POTUS is permitted but not independently entitled to do and quite another to defund something that a POTUS is independently entitled and empowered to do under his/her powers. For example, could Congress prevent all funding for a President to do pardons and commutations of sentences down to defunding paper and pens? Cut off even the coffee and electricity bills for receiving foreign ambassadors, etc? Defund Air Force One and any and all other travel expenses for conducting issues of foreign affairs within the executive's entitlements?

Courts have stepped in to invalidate things on funding improprieties. For example, unfunded mandates in laws have been deemed unconstitutional. That's not directly on point to this issue, but the concepts do interplay. Defunding something an executive is entitled to do essentially deprives the POTUS of an express power, and that triggers a clear separation of powers issue. In short, IMO, Congress is obliged to fund at least those things that an executive is entitled to do by his/her expressly granted powers so the executive can exercise those granted powers.

[nannysuetle]

If I recall correctly, Obama supported the use of signing statements as President. This was according to This American Life. Whether he supports them or not, though, I don't support them.

Ben

[amehoubFomo]

If I recall correctly, Obama supported the use of signing statements as President. This was according to This American Life. Whether he supports them or not, though, I don't support them.

Ben

*grinds his knuckes into his eyes*

wow!

ahoy Benjamin and welcome back!!!!

*cheers*

- MeadHallPirate

[incizarry]

It has to be obeyed because its the law. Hes a free individual, though. He can choose to break the law. And suffer the consequences.

Congress cannot pass laws taking away the constitutional powers of the President. If they can, the branches aren't co-equal.

[nannysuetle]

*grinds his knuckes into his eyes*

wow!

ahoy Benjamin and welcome back!!!!

*cheers*

- MeadHallPirate

Thanks for the warm welcome! It's good to be back.

Ben

[Peertantyb]

ahoy CharlesDavenport,

as someone who be essentially, a racist, i can well see why this kinda rhetoric would vex ye so.

- MeadHallPirate

I swear, when things don't go your way or fit your mold of ideas they must be a racist. You liberals, have all the disparaging remarks, your a racist, stupid, idiot, evil, etc etc. Get a grip.