Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement

[del]

Nope, they're international organizations. Look it up.

but CONGRESS isn't. CONGRESS passed a LAW placing restrictions on AID to the *international organizations*. obama told CONGRESS to go shit in their hats, just like bush used to.

is any of this sinking in yet?

"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."

That sounds reasonable to me, but in that case I agree with Kennedy in a way, he should have vetoed it and sent it back with his objections. It is within his discretion to deal with international organizations and other nations as he sees fit. Congress overstepped their bounds in this. Honestly, I did misread the part about the WTO and IMF. I thought he was telling them to shit in their hats. I wish he would.

i'm sure bush gussied his signing statements up in much the same fashion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

It sounded like he said he wasn't going to use signing statemnets to do an end run around congress, not that he wouldn't use them. aparently, you missed what he actually said.

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

 

[Barb]

but CONGRESS isn't. CONGRESS passed a LAW placing restrictions on AID to the *international organizations*. obama told CONGRESS to go shit in their hats, just like bush used to.

is any of this sinking in yet?

"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."

That sounds reasonable to me, but in that case I agree with Kennedy in a way, he should have vetoed it and sent it back with his objections. It is within his discretion to deal with international organizations and other nations as he sees fit. Congress overstepped their bounds in this. Honestly, I did misread the part about the WTO and IMF. I thought he was telling them to shit in their hats. I wish he would.

i'm sure bush gussied his signing statements up in much the same fashion.

Actually, not so much, and not within any real constitutional background. He made up powers of the executive rather than enforce those already established. I'll admit Obama stepped on his dick here, he should have vetoed it with a very concise note to congress, and told them to send something better back to him. However, in that case, because it is a war spending bill, the republicans would have pissed and moaned because he delayed funding for the troops.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azagLmoboC0]YouTube - Walter - Bitch biiiiitch[/ame]

 

[del]

"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."

That sounds reasonable to me, but in that case I agree with Kennedy in a way, he should have vetoed it and sent it back with his objections. It is within his discretion to deal with international organizations and other nations as he sees fit. Congress overstepped their bounds in this. Honestly, I did misread the part about the WTO and IMF. I thought he was telling them to shit in their hats. I wish he would.

i'm sure bush gussied his signing statements up in much the same fashion.

Actually, not so much, and not within any real constitutional background. He made up powers of the executive rather than enforce those already established. I'll admit Obama stepped on his dick here, he should have vetoed it with a very concise note to congress, and told them to send something better back to him. However, in that case, because it is a war spending bill, the republicans would have pissed and moaned because he delayed funding for the troops.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azagLmoboC0]YouTube - Walter - Bitch biiiiitch[/ame]

and you know this how? you've read all bush's signing statements or you're just sure that he was so damn evil/stupid that he couldn't possibly have done so?

while you're at it, when did bush categorically state he wouldn't use signing statements like a certain current chief executive did?

 

[Alan Partridge]

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

 

[del]

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

way to take the high road, ace.

 

[MaggieMae]

“Don't you miss the good old days of Bush's "unitary executive" presidency? The left got its panties in a twist every time Bush signed a bill and issued a signing statement listing his objections. They tried to outdo each other in outrage when talking about "dictatorship" and the like whenever these signing statements were published.

Bush signed over 800. Actually, he did so at the instruction of Cheney/Addington who read every single bill that reached the Oval Office for signature scrutinizing whether or not it would need a signing statement. Your puppet just did as he was told.

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

So because Obama said he wouldn't, and Bush didn't know any better, I guess that makes your case for you? Obama is finding out a lot of things on the job aren't quite as easy as he thought. Funny, that happens in every new job. Yet you're willing to give your guy a pass because he WAS waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay above his pay grade. Okay.

 

[Barb]

i'm sure bush gussied his signing statements up in much the same fashion.

Actually, not so much, and not within any real constitutional background. He made up powers of the executive rather than enforce those already established. I'll admit Obama stepped on his dick here, he should have vetoed it with a very concise note to congress, and told them to send something better back to him. However, in that case, because it is a war spending bill, the republicans would have pissed and moaned because he delayed funding for the troops.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azagLmoboC0]YouTube - Walter - Bitch biiiiitch[/ame]

and you know this how? you've read all bush's signing statements or you're just sure that he was so damn evil/stupid that he couldn't possibly have done so?

while you're at it, when did bush categorically state he wouldn't use signing statements like a certain current chief executive did?

Obama never said he wouldn't use them, he said he wouldn't use them to usurp legitimate congressional power. As for Bush and what I've read: Actually, I did read enough of them, most of my undergrad work was political studies. His views on signing statements in general was sent out on Dec. 30, 2005, a little run up to reauthorization of the US PATRIOT Act. I won't bore you with my paper, but here are some links:

Brubaker B. (9 March, 2006) Bush Signs New Version of Patriot Act The Washington Post retrieved July 19, 2007 from Bush Signs New Version of Patriot Act - washingtonpost.com
Bumiller, E. (16 January, 2006) White House Letter; For President, Final Say on a Bill Sometimes Comes After the Signing The New York Times (Archives) retrieved July 19, 2007 from White House Letter; For President, Final Say on a Bill Sometimes Comes After the Signing - New York Times
Kakutani, M. (6 July, 2007) Unchecked and Unbalanced The New York Times Books of the Times review, retrieved July 29, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/b...d=1&ei=5070&en=8d9e0831e79e320c&ex=1185854400
Savage, C. (24 March, 2006) Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding The Boston Globe retrieved July 19, 2007 from Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement - The Boston Globe
Stolberg, S. (10 February, 2006) Key Senators Reach Accord On Extending the Patriot Act The New York Times (Archive) retrieved July 19, 2007 from Key Senators Reach Accord On Extending the Patriot Act - New York Times

 

[Alan Partridge]

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

way to take the high road, ace.

Way to be clever, tiger...

 

[MaggieMae]

Imagine my shock that Dems aren't zombie robots like the Republicans were with Bush.

imagine my surprise that obama seems to think george had some great ideas about running the country. change.........

The reality is that there is too much to just overturn. Ironically, "CHANGE" happened during the Bush Administration.

 

[MaggieMae]

but CONGRESS isn't. CONGRESS passed a LAW placing restrictions on AID to the *international organizations*. obama told CONGRESS to go shit in their hats, just like bush used to.

is any of this sinking in yet?

"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."

That sounds reasonable to me, but in that case I agree with Kennedy in a way, he should have vetoed it and sent it back with his objections. It is within his discretion to deal with international organizations and other nations as he sees fit. Congress overstepped their bounds in this. Honestly, I did misread the part about the WTO and IMF. I thought he was telling them to shit in their hats. I wish he would.

i'm sure bush gussied his signing statements up in much the same fashion.

Sometimes the signing statements were meant to simply halt a program from being funded. If a signing statement puts an entire bill on the back burner because there's no money appropriated by the House yet, mission accomplished. I used to know more about these, but would have to dig through my own archives to find an example.

 

[Sinatra]

Obama is proving to be a total political douche of epic proportion.

He is floundering.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement

Four Reps. Sent Letter Saying He Sounded Like Bush When He Said He Would Ignore IMF, World Bank Aid Restrictions



(AP) Congressional Democrats warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he sounded too much like George W. Bush when he declared this summer that the White House can ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution.

In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrin ed" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Obama said he wouldn't allow the provisions to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

The rebuff was reminiscent of Bush, who issued a record number of "signing statements" while in office. The statements put Congress on notice that the administration didn't feel compelled to comply with provisions of legislation that it felt challenged the president's authority as commander in chief.

Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush for his reliance on the statements. Obama said he would use them sparingly and only if authorized by the attorney general.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president's assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the lawmakers wrote. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."

The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dems Challenge Obama Signing Statement - CBS News

sounds like the AP shares my opinion that President Obama is just Like President Bush on crack.

 

[Alan Partridge]

Oh, i get it, crack because he's black...

(sarcasm)

 

[MaggieMae]

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

They keep hoping on hope that one of the "nits" will prove to be his "Waterloo."

 

[Barb]

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

They keep hoping on hope that one of the "nits" will prove to be his "Waterloo."

That little quote will be around for a while. Maybe they'll play the song at Obama's next inauguration.

 

[Coyote]

Well he's partially right but mostly wrong. He shouldn't ignore legislation that goes against the Constitution, he should veto it.

“Don't you miss the good old days of Bush's "unitary executive" presidency? The left got its panties in a twist every time Bush signed a bill and issued a signing statement listing his objections. They tried to outdo each other in outrage when talking about "dictatorship" and the like whenever these signing statements were published.

Sometimes it was even front page news in the New York Times and Washington Post. "Balance of Power!" "Unitary executive!" "Bush is Hitler - or Worse!"
American Thinker Blog: Obama signing statement on war funding bill: Left is curiously silent

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hEYyuNr4DAk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hEYyuNr4DAk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/seAR1S1Mjkc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/seAR1S1Mjkc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Sworn in on January 20th, he waited until March 11th to issue his first Signing Statement.
The White House - Press Office - Statement from the President on the signing of H.R. 1105

The left is "curiously silent" because thus far it is a single event and not (yet) a trend. That was a good graph that Maggie Mae posted. Puts it into a bit of context.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Listen to it again, for the correct explanation.

Voice: Do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

Senator Obama: "Yes."

Do you find much interpretation necessary? Or are you still trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is?

President Obama: The President can either veto it or sign it.

Was there a third choice listed in that statement. Veto or sign. Or do you see a way to parse this 'veto or sign' to include, "but not to get my way"?

Or was it in the "...I taught the Constitution for ten years..." Is that where you see the parsing?

Wise up.

wow, another jackass who thinks they own the english language.

The part of the sentence that ruins your arguement is "to get your way"

besides, you douchebags already want him to fail, so the picking of the nits has been happening since Obama gave a speech in 2004

Watch your language, you're not speaking to your mother.

But I understand your rage, as I have punctured your argument, and slapped you around a bit.

Calm down, with practice, your understanding of both standard English, and poitical-speak will improve.

Kind of juvenile attempt to change the subject when you lose, as "...already want him to fail..."


And just to help you understand what just took place, here is the review: Your attempted to find some wiggle room in President Obama's promise not to use signing statements to excuse his use of signing statements.

You were shown that, based on standard English usage, this was disingenuous.

You showed that you were able to handle neither the truth, nor the criticism.

You are sent to your room without dessert.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bush signed over 800. Actually, he did so at the instruction of Cheney/Addington who read every single bill that reached the Oval Office for signature scrutinizing whether or not it would need a signing statement. Your puppet just did as he was told.

Did I miss the public proclamation where President Bush promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, did you miss the youtube that I provided in which our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) promised in clear,concise, succinct language how, as a professor of Constitutional law, he would never, ever, use such a technique as President?

Or, possibly, a clear,concise understanding of the Constitution is above his pay grade.

So because Obama said he wouldn't, and Bush didn't know any better, I guess that makes your case for you? Obama is finding out a lot of things on the job aren't quite as easy as he thought. Funny, that happens in every new job. Yet you're willing to give your guy a pass because he WAS waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay above his pay grade. Okay.

As I have found you to be honest, if disagreeable, would you care to hazard a guess as to which President, Bush or Obama, will ultimately, when the history books are written, have the higher esteem?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh, i get it, crack because he's black...

(sarcasm)

I see the sarcasm . Crack because he is doing what bush did but at a much faster pace