He did it again!

[Wild Cobra]

I hadn't looked for a while, but President Obama released another signing statement that he says he will not follow the law congress passed.

Why can he do this and liberals and stay tight lipped, but cried when President Bush did it?

Fucking hypocrites!

512 - Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=86345), end of statement:


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.

BARACK OBAMA

[clambake]

shhhhh....

[Cane]

Fucking dumbass partisan bullshit.

This forum blows.

[clambake]

has it always been this way?

[Wild Cobra]

Fucking dumbass partisan bullshit.

This forum blows.
Why do you say that?

I just want to know where the liberal outcry is in signing statements. Why only when President Bush did it?

Personally, this is an area I applaud President Obama in. Not letting congress infringe on his Article II powers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why do you say that?

I just want to know where the liberal outcry is in signing statements. Why only when President Bush did it?

Personally, this is an area I applaud President Obama in. Not letting congress infringe on his Article II powers.

When you explain your hypocrisy on many other issues then you might have an ounce of credibility. Until then you are as guilty of those on the left for the exact same thing. Somehow I think that has escaped you..

[jack sommerset]

When you explain your hypocrisy on many other issues then you might have an ounce of credibility. Until then you are as guilty of those on the left for the exact same thing. Somehow I think that has escaped you..

Sweet

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sweet

let me guess this concept of hypocrisy is foreign to you as well?

[jack sommerset]

let me guess this concept of hypocrisy is foreign to you as well?

There are not to many people out there that will allow a person to do anything they want. No matter what Obama does you will say it is ok. I know "blame Bush" Thank goodness most voters don't think this way as indicated in his approval rating.

[Wild Cobra]

When you explain your hypocrisy on many other issues then you might have an ounce of credibility. Until then you are as guilty of those on the left for the exact same thing. Somehow I think that has escaped you..
What hypocrisy? Tell me, please.

[ChumpDumper]

Most voters did blame Bush as indicated by Bush's approval rating.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What hypocrisy? Tell me, please.

Your hypocrisy is well documented on this board. Tell you what from here on out I will point your hypocrisy as we go along. I know you will provide me ample opportunity to do so.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There are not to many people out there that will allow a person to do anything they want. No matter what Obama does you will say it is ok. I know "blame Bush" Thank goodness most voters don't think this way as indicated in his approval rating.

Jack your obseesion with fags has blinded you to the fact that I am not an Obama cheerleader.

[jack sommerset]

I am not an Obama cheerleader.

Yes you are


Jack your obseesion with fags has blinded you.

I'm not talking about the gays

You are

[LnGrrrR]

I don't agree with this when Obama does it either. If he thinks it will interfere with his powers, then he should veto the bill outright.

Give it some time... I'm sure that if Obama does that on a bill that doesn't agree with liberals, he'll do that as well.

Also WC, the main person who broke the information on signing statements, Charlie Savage from the Boston Globe, has been discussing Obama's willingness to carry on Bush's legacy of federal power.

[sook]

Obama sucks, but he is still better than what the old fool mccain would have done.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The "progression" from gore to Kerry to Obama was nothing to hoot about as well. I give dean a half nod in there as well. Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaagaggggggggghhhhhhhhhh

[Viva Las Espuelas]

One question i have is are all 57states covered by this statement?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't agree with this when Obama does it either. If he thinks it will interfere with his powers, then he should veto the bill outright.

Give it some time... I'm sure that if Obama does that on a bill that doesn't agree with liberals, he'll do that as well.

Also WC, the main person who broke the information on signing statements, Charlie Savage from the Boston Globe, has been discussing Obama's willingness to carry on Bush's legacy of federal power.
At least neither of us are hypocritical on this. I agree both presidents had the right, you disagree.

[Wild Cobra]

One question i have is are all 57states covered by this statement?
I wonder if his brain goes into all kinds of tangents, and maybe he was thinking of Heinz hinny, of Heinz 57?

[Wild Cobra]

Aren't any of you Bush Bashers besides LnGrrrR going to complain about Obama's signing statements?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not sure if they really bug me all that much. If they raise real constitutional issues I can see their being handled in the courts. I'm more concerned with what presidents actually do instead of what they say they might do or may be able to do.

[TheProfessor]

An interesting take from someone who knows far more about the subject than any of us: http://executivewatch.net/2009/07/21/president-obama’s-signing-statements-and-congress’s-response-a-return-to-separation-of-powers-sanity/

A summary for those who don't care to read: only two of the nine signing statements are unconventional and came with the Omnibus Appropriations Act, President Obama is on pace to match Reagan and Clinton signing statement numbers (which he still considers too high), and that Congress is, to some extent, pushing back. If Obama stays on pace, he would produce 40 signing statements in this term, and 40 in his next. Bush, in his first six years, objected to over a thousand provisions.

I agree with the author that I'm no fan of signing statements, but surely you can see the difference between the Bush administration and this one. Now, if you'd like to go after Obama for regressing to Reagan/Clinton numbers but not stopping the practice entirely, I could understand, but Bush flagrantly abused the practice.

[Rogue]

There are not to many people out there that will allow a person to do anything they want. No matter what Obama does you will say it is ok. I know "blame Bush" Thank goodness most voters don't think this way as indicated in his approval rating.
shut your two pieces of parallel pussies up already. If someone thinks he is more capable of being the president, then he should have paid the 100,000 dollars for registering as a presidential candidate. Probably Obama isn't doing this work as good as someone else of the 350 millions would have done, but Obama is the man that collected more than half of the total votes and put his hand on the Bible and constitution on his inauguration.

[TheProfessor]

shut your two pieces of parallel pussies up already.
:wtf :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

I've said it before and will note my position again -- I don't think signing statements are inherently bad (though I'd prefer that they go away); what's problematic about the practice isn't the statement itself, but what it says.

If Wild Strawman was willing to take that position on instead of devolving the argument into whatever generalization best suits his position, this might be a worthwhile discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

If Obama stays on pace, he would produce 40 signing statements in this term, and 40 in his next. Bush, in his first six years, objected to over a thousand provisions.
You like being deceptive?

If President Obama does 40 signing statements a years, that will be 240 in six years. President Bush only had 159 signing statements in 8 years (http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm)!

[Nbadan]

A summary for those who don't care to read: only two of the nine signing statements are unconventional and came with the Omnibus Appropriations Act, President Obama is on pace to match Reagan and Clinton signing statement numbers (which he still considers too high), and that Congress is, to some extent, pushing back. If Obama stays on pace, he would produce 40 signing statements in this term, and 40 in his next. Bush, in his first six years, objected to over a thousand provisions.

It's not just Dubya's signing statements, but when you combine this with warrentless surveillence and a complete disreguard for Congressional investigations you get a better picture of the Bush administrations feelings toward any oversight..

[Nbadan]

I believe a term is 4 years..

[Wild Cobra]

I've said it before and will note my position again -- I don't think signing statements are inherently bad (though I'd prefer that they go away); what's problematic about the practice isn't the statement itself, but what it says.

If Wild Strawman was willing to take that position on instead of devolving the argument into whatever generalization best suits his position, this might be a worthwhile discussion.
I am only pointing out that the reason of the signing statements the liberals cried foul over with president Bust are no different than the reasons President Obama uses. Therefore, they are hypocrites for not crying foul when President Obama does it. I support president Obama on this issue.

[Wild Cobra]

I believe a term is 4 years..
LOL... I missed that... I was thinking year.

OK, 7 signing statements in 6 months. That's 56 a term, or 112 at the current pace.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't agree with this when Obama does it either. If he thinks it will interfere with his powers, then he should veto the bill outright.

If that is the standard, then does that mean a super majority can effectively rewrite the constitution, and place congress above the president?

[Wild Cobra]

An interesting take from someone who knows far more about the subject than any of us: http://executivewatch.net/2009/07/21/president-obama’s-signing-statements-and-congress’s-response-a-return-to-separation-of-powers-sanity/
Are you in the habit or using people's work who cannot get the simple facts right? President Obama, in six months, has seven signing statements. Not five! From your link:
In his first six months in office, President Obama has also issued a fistful of these signing statements – five to be exact.
Look at this:Presidential Signing Statements (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2009&Submit=DISPLAY):
Barack Obama February 17, 2009 Statement on Signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Barack Obama March 11, 2009 Statement on Signing the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
Barack Obama March 30, 2009 Statement on Signing the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
Barack Obama May 20, 2009 Statement on Signing the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009
Barack Obama June 2, 2009 Statement on Signing the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act
Barack Obama June 24, 2009 Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
Barack Obama June 24, 2009 Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am only pointing out that the reason of the signing statements the liberals cried foul over with president Bust are no different than the reasons President Obama uses. Therefore, they are hypocrites for not crying foul when President Obama does it. I support president Obama on this issue.

who cried foul?

[TheProfessor]

Are you in the habit or using people's work who cannot get the simple facts right? President Obama, in six months, has seven signing statements. Not five! From your link:
Look at this:Presidential Signing Statements (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2009&Submit=DISPLAY):
And you are in the habit of neglecting his substantive arguments because you are a regurgitative partisan hack. If you do not wish to have an actual discussion on the subject, I can only assume you post simply to be outraged, and don't see why you're any less of a hypocrite than those who blindly follow Obama.

[LnGrrrR]

If that is the standard, then does that mean a super majority can effectively rewrite the constitution, and place congress above the president?

Sure, if they get veto-proof power. I figure, the President could claim standing and take it to SCOTUS, though I'm not sure exactly how that would work. After all, SCOTUS determines Constitutionality of law in many other cases, correct?

[ChumpDumper]

If that is the standard, then does that mean a super majority can effectively rewrite the constitution, and place congress above the president?That would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

[FromWayDowntown]

If that is the standard, then does that mean a super majority can effectively rewrite the constitution, and place congress above the president?

Why not? It took less than that for a President to place himself above Congress. [/sarcasm]

[Spursmania]

I'm not surprised at all.

[Wild Cobra]

That would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
That is the standard, and my point. If congress can make the president submissive to congress by a super majority, then they effectively change the equal powers of the constitution, which then violates the proper means of a constitutional change.

[ElNono]

That is the standard, and my point. If congress can make the president submissive to congress by a super majority, then they effectively change the equal powers of the constitution, which then violates the proper means of a constitutional change.

The Constitution doesn't delegate equal powers... which goes to show how much you know about our form of government...

[LnGrrrR]

That is the standard, and my point. If congress can make the president submissive to congress by a super majority, then they effectively change the equal powers of the constitution, which then violates the proper means of a constitutional change.

Well, a supermajority can get past a veto, which effectively overrules the President's check on the legislative branch as well.

[ChumpDumper]

That is the standard, and my point. If congress can make the president submissive to congress by a super majority, then they effectively change the equal powers of the constitution, which then violates the proper means of a constitutional change.No, they can't.

[SonOfAGun]

Obama sucks, but he is still better than what the old fool mccain would have done.

I used to think this too.