railed against his predecessor and his signing statements.....in March he signed a memo to all executive members of the administration to ignore the previous signing memos and during the campaign he specifically said he wouldnt do it.....you can watch him say it here.,,,

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc[/ame]

Now he really took Bush to task on this....

I believe the below is AT LEAST the second signing statement this President has issued and they all have to do with his POWER to do things....for example, this is from the June 24 signing 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."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...gning-HR-2346/


Now, I am not questioning the validity of what he says, but HOW can he absolutely rail on a sitting President and if you watched the video that is what he did and then simply just do the same things ?

This has become such a constant and chronic trend with this administration !

I don't like "signing statements" either, Bucco. But if our feckless Congress drops language into legislation that the President's lawyers believe is illegal, what is this President or any other President to do? He has two choices--veto the bill or sign it with a signing statement. It looks like signing statements will be with us for awhile.

I'd love it if the President had line item veto power. It seems to me that would focus the differences of opinion between the legislative and executive branches so that the line item veto could either be overturned, or not. It seems to me that would take the use of signing statements pretty much out of play. But we have as much chance of having Congress approve a Presidential line item veto as we do having them seriously address either campaign finance reform or tort reform.

I wonder how the Constitution addresses the idea of a signing statement? I'd guess that was a subject that even our brilliant framers didn't anticipate.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I don't like "signing statements" either, Bucco. But if our feckless Congress drops language into legislation that the President's lawyers believe is illegal, what is this President or any other President to do? He has two choices--veto the bill or sign it with a signing statement. It looks like signing statements will be with us for awhile.

I'd love it if the President had line item veto power. It seems to me that would focus the differences of opinion between the legislative and executive branches so that the line item veto could either be overturned, or not. It seems to me that would take the use of signing statements pretty much out of play. But we have as much chance of having Congress approve a Presidential line item veto as we do having them seriously address either campaign finance reform or tort reform.

I wonder how the Constitution addresses the idea of a signing statement? I'd guess that was a subject that even our brilliant framers didn't anticipate.

I have no arguement with what you say VK, but my point was that he really attacked the current President with this and I recall (Ithink it was on here) a poster really using Obama's issue with signing statments as an absolute reflection of the power hungry and immoral Bush.

I understand and that is why I am not quibbling with what he has done but he attracted so many people with FALSE promises...this may not be a major one but he did lie and I propose that he KNEW he was lying when he said it !

There have been numerous lies...too many to mention here as I'm going to the circus tonite. Cirque du Soleil in Providence, RI. Have a good night and behave yourselves.

And Oprah said about him during the campaign...

"his tongue was dipped in the unvarnished truth"

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I don't like "signing statements" either, Bucco. But if our feckless Congress drops language into legislation that the President's lawyers believe is illegal, what is this President or any other President to do? He has two choices--veto the bill or sign it with a signing statement. It looks like signing statements will be with us for awhile.

I'd love it if the President had line item veto power. It seems to me that would focus the differences of opinion between the legislative and executive branches so that the line item veto could either be overturned, or not. It seems to me that would take the use of signing statements pretty much out of play. But we have as much chance of having Congress approve a Presidential line item veto as we do having them seriously address either campaign finance reform or tort reform.

I wonder how the Constitution addresses the idea of a signing statement? I'd guess that was a subject that even our brilliant framers didn't anticipate.

The "signing statements" only indicate that the Executive Branch views a particular provision as unconstitutional, and as such does not plan to be bound by that provision. If the Executive Branch does not follow any particular provision, the EB is subject to suit, but who's going to sue? Depending on the provision, the battle could last longer tha the administration's term - and who's willing to belly up the money for the suit?

As far as "line item veto," I hope it never comes to pass, and would appear to take a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen. Congress cannot autocratically change the Executive's authority, and I doubt SCOTUS would rule that any Congressional action for a line item veto as being unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

The "signing statements" only indicate that the Executive Branch views a particular provision as unconstitutional, and as such does not plan to be bound by that provision. If the Executive Branch does not follow any particular provision, the EB is subject to suit, but who's going to sue? Depending on the provision, the battle could last longer tha the administration's term - and who's willing to belly up the money for the suit?

As far as "line item veto," I hope it never comes to pass, and would appear to take a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen. Congress cannot autocratically change the Executive's authority, and I doubt SCOTUS would rule that any Congressional action for a line item veto as being unconstitutional.

But, Steve, Candidate Obama said he would not sign these and made the administration at the time a real villian because they did !

Originally Posted by Bucco

But, Steve, Candidate Obama said he would not sign these and made the administration at the time a real villian because they did !

And people are surprised that campaign promises and prior-administration vilification have as much post-election value as four-day-old bread? Or that President Obama would be any different than other candidates? The "change" has been in who's reneging on promises....

Originally Posted by SteveZ

And people are surprised that campaign promises and prior-administration vilification have as much post-election value as four-day-old bread? Or that President Obama would be any different than other candidates? The "change" has been in who's reneging on promises....

I have opposed Obama since Iowa, and am well aware of the campaign promises and they over stating promises, but even I am shocked at how blatant some of these lies have been !

Originally Posted by Bucco

I have opposed Obama since Iowa, and am well aware of the campaign promises and they over stating promises, but even I am shocked at how blatant some of these lies have been !

And with a Congress with his party in the majority, "led" by Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid, there is no effective entity to stop this runaway train - until the 2010 election.

Unless the Democrats lose their lock on either the House or Senate in 2010, there will be fewer Democrats who are taxpayers (just like the rest of us) and find themselves paying for all of these "changes."

To recall a famous campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid!" - and that should be the rallying cry for change in Congress in 2010.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

And with a Congress with his party in the majority, "led" by Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid, there is no effective entity to stop this runaway train - until the 2010 election.

Unless the Democrats lose their lock on either the House or Senate in 2010, there will be fewer Democrats who are taxpayers (just like the rest of us) and find themselves paying for all of these "changes."

To recall a famous campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid!" - and that should be the rallying cry for change in Congress in 2010.

Agree. I think that the republicans will run on the economy, taxes and plain old lies. They might have themselves a "Read My Lips" platform with Obama's promise of no taxs for people earning under $250,000.