He did it again!

[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!

[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 cons ution, 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...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:

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:

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 cons ution, 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 Cons utionality of law in many other cases, correct?

[ChumpDumper]

If that is the standard, then does that mean a super majority can effectively rewrite the cons ution, 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 cons ution, 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 cons ution, which then violates the proper means of a cons utional 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 cons ution, which then violates the proper means of a cons utional change.

The Cons ution 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 cons ution, which then violates the proper means of a cons utional 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 cons ution, which then violates the proper means of a cons utional 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.