Another Democrat Hypocrisy Chapter…Obama Uses Signing Statements

Posted on by ( 11 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading

Another day, another Obama broken promise. Here he is last year saying he will NOT use signing statements:

We are not going to use signing statements as a way to do a end run around Congress

Bush this and Bush that. Bush used the signing statements to accumulate power. Yeeeeah…..Lights please: (h/t Conservative Punk)

President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill Wednesday that includes thousands of pet projects inserted by lawmakers, even as he unveiled new rules to restrict such so-called earmarks.

At the same time, after Democrats criticized former President George W. Bush’s signing statements, Mr. Obama issued one of his own, declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, including one aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.

His excuse?

“We can’t have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery,” Mr. Obama said. “But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.”

So basically, when HE views it as important it’s a-ok to issue those signing statements. When Bush viewed it as important it was just a end-run around Congress and the Constitution.

Oh the hypocrisy.

More here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Where can we get a list of the five provisions he declared “unconstitutional and nonbinding”?

0

@Taqiyyotomist:

Here ya go:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 11, 2009

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1105, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.” This bill completes the work of last year by providing the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation’s Government.

As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns.

* Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.
* United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.
* Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.
* Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
* Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 11, 2009.

0

We are not going to use signing statements as a way to do a end run around Congress
—

Probably came to realize that he does not like Pelosi, either….

0

It just amazes me each time he does this and thinks he is getting away with it. What he does not understand and that Clinton did not either is that every time you break promises like this you undermine the leadership of the Office. The President loses credibility. It affects the ability of the government to do its job. The sad thing is that this is intentional to mislead the citizens and it did not work for Clinton and it does not now.

http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

0

Big deal…
when he gets to 1200 plus signing statements like George W. Bush used..
(most of any president in US History)… then you can whine..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

0

Her Crap, when did Bush promise he wouldn’t do it? Obama did.
Change your diaper and shut up already.

0

@Real American Patriot:

Super Duped, while Posting Under the Influence of Obama evidently did not read his own source.

President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.[5]

Clinton is obviously the king of signing statements and thanks for providing the information.

This thread is about h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

Note the reason for the hypocrite-in-chief’s signing statement, the one who complained and campaigned against signing statements, that was then, the now suddenly changes:

declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding

That’s right, he declared it to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, same reason President Bush used, yet, Obama points fingers, whines, cries and blames while doing the same thing. h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y, get used to it, it’s Obama’s MO, a weak character link embedded in his DNA.

0

So I guess whistleblowers would bog down Congress in its work? Well then lets just make Hussein KING HUSSEIN! That’ll cut out the middle man (except for Soros) and do away with all of that icky constitutional stuff. I mean it works reeeely well in Cuba, where everyone is happy and prosperous!

0

This can’t be true! After all, the Obama-Biden transition website (change.gov) says:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

Does this president thing we all have poor memories, or is there an ulterior motive?

Things that make you go “Hmmmm…?”

Jeff V

0

These signing statements will be just another tool to allow Obama to duck his “5 days of sunshine” campaign promise.

We had better be watchful of this practice if we turn congress more to the right, as Obama will simply declare the parts he doesn’t like to be “unconstitutional.”

What a farce!

Jeff V

0