Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.
The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.
They 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," Obama said in the signing statement.
Now, for some reason, I thought this kind of behavior would not fit in with obama's shiny, new politics.
I know when Bush did this, the Left would howl, claiming he was shredding the constitution.
Signing statements, of course, have no effect. They are merely decorations, and have no force of law behind them, whether they are done by GWB or Obama or anyone else. A president can say (or write) anything he wants while signing a bill into law. But only the bill becomes law, since it was passed by Congress; the signing statement doesn't.
The furor over signing statements was invented by Democrats as one of their many efforts to pretend then-President Bush had done something wrong. Now that Obama is doing the same thing, they are ignoring them, since they have no interest in pretending Obama is doing something wrong. If Republicans yelp enough, the Democrats will simply say, "Hey, you dummmies, why are you making a fuss over nothing? Signing statements like this have no effect! Get a life!"
Signing statements, of course, have no effect. They are merely decorations, and have no force of law behind them, whether they are done by GWB or Obama or anyone else. A president can say (or write) anything he wants while signing a bill into law. But only the bill becomes law, since it was passed by Congress; the signing statement doesn't.
The furor over signing statements was invented by Democrats as one of their many efforts to pretend then-President Bush had done something wrong. Now that Obama is doing the same thing, they are ignoring them, since they have no interest in pretending Obama is doing something wrong. If Republicans yelp enough, the Democrats will simply say, "Hey, you dummmies, why are you making a fuss over nothing? Signing statements like this have no effect! Get a life!"
Their purpose is to direct the agencies and departements that will actually carry out the law which parts they should enforce, and which they shouldn't.
So according to Little-Acorn, they don't matter. But here in the real world, they do.
The furor over signing statements was invented by Democrats as one of their many efforts to pretend then-President Bush had done something wrong.
As for the statements themselves, perhaps they are a written statement of what parts of the law the President intends to enforce, and what parts he doesn't. If so, and if the Pres does what the statements say, then they are a written statement of how he intends to violate his Oath of Office, in which he swore to uphold the Constitution. Including the part of the Const that says the Pres's job is to ensure the laws (ALL laws) of the US are enforced.
This may be veering off in another direction, but what I find interesting about this topic and several others that have come up is that the balance of powers is coming into play so strongly. When Bush had a Republican controlled Congress, he didn't just issue signing statements (a record number of them) to impose his control of legislation, he was given a lot of leeway by Congress in his executive discretion about how to enforce legislation.
I did comment then that he was usurping Congressional power by his actions, and by using the terrorist threat to enforce his authority. I also said the pendulum would swing back. And that does seem to be happening with this Congress. While some people thought that a Democrat-controlled Congress would accede to President Obama willingly, that's not been the case. Perhaps because Democrats assumed control of Congress before Obama's election, but this Congress seems bent on asserting its powers and reining in Presidential power. I think the next three and a half years this pattern will continue, so that Obama and Congress will actually be pitted against one another quite often.
Same sh*t different day. Miriam-Webster better get busy re-definining the word "change." We wouldn't want generations of youth to be mislead like they were at the ballot box in November 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
