Obama Issues Signing Statement On War Spending BIll

On Friday, President Obama signed a new war spending bill into law, but "not without taking a page from his predecessor and ignoring a few elements in the legislation," the Hill reports.

Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill.

President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative.

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The full text of Obama's statement is below, and available on the White House website here.

* * * * *

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2346, the "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009." This Act provides the necessary resources for our troops while supporting ongoing diplomatic and development efforts around the world.

We face a security situation abroad that demands urgent attention. The Taliban is resurgent and al Qaeda is increasing its attacks from its safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The funding provided in this Act will ensure that the full force of the United States is engaged in an overall effort to defeat al Qaeda and uproot this safe haven.

At the same time, funding contained in this Act will provide resources to help create political and economic stability in post-conflict areas. These funds will assist Afghans and Iraqis in protecting and sustaining their infrastructure and building their capacity for more responsive and transparent governance. The Act also provides critical support for continued U.S. diplomatic and development activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

In addition, this Act includes funding for other domestic and international issues, including nearly $8 billion to enhance our Nation's capability to respond to the potential spread of the H1N1 flu outbreak. It also expands the resources available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by allowing it to boost its lending ability. Many developing countries are experiencing severe economic decline and a massive withdrawal of capital, and the IMF needs to make sure it has the resources necessary to effectively respond to the current financial crisis.

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.

Comments

[Dynalisia]

The real question for the 'oh my god, broken promises!' crowd will be whether Obama breaking some of his promises is worse than getting another republican or worse democrat into the white house next term. Knowing how many American tend to be, I would not be surprised to see misplaced moral outrage over broken promises stand in the way of doing the right thing for the country.

[instagladiator]

Which part of

"would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

did you not understand?

[davenav]

Right. Let's see -- Obama is at the bargaining table, about to close the deal on a treaty, jumps up, says, "I'll be back after I report to congress."

Is that what you want? Because it is a vast departure from how we have it set up now.

Even if it was a good idea, which it isn't, it would tie his hands and make foreign leaders mistrust his every step.

[kassandrasduplex]

And what makes you think he is doing the right thing for you or me? Blind faith. The American Civil Liberties Union has already publicly declared Obama to be "more of the same". Glenn Greenwald has already declared Obama to be "worse than Bush" on spying. His FLIP FLOP on retro-active telecom immunity (and his subsequent federal court request for greater powers to spy on your and my financial and personal situation) should have triggered a self defense mechanism in his blind faithful a long time ago. When he signed a do-nothing credit card bill allowing GUNS in national parks for crying out loud should have triggered some red flag!

[Kassandra]

And Naomi Klein has said that Obama's policies "are seamless with Bush's".

Good luck on "healthcare reform" we won;t even get the Trojan horse of a public option we'll all just have to pay and that includes people on Medicare, Medicaid AND prolly the veterans whom everyone "supports".

I don't even know why Congress is bothering to pass these bills. They're worse than nothing. That "Clean energy" thingy is a bad joke and most progressives in the house DID NOT want to vote for as it will do NOTHING.

[Palemoon]

With Republicans Pelosi and Reid in charge of the Congress, and Obama bowing down to them every chance he gets, it's tatamount to Bush still remaining President.

[AtomicSplash]

If Barack brings any international agreement to the senate that is missing the things the congress said it wanted in this bill, the senate has it @s$ covered when it says no.... sorry.....rejected

[research]

For the final crushing of democracy, the Plutocracy appears to have bought a young man named Obama to smooth the way for the bankers, the plutocracy to take total control. All of Obama's administrations actions have helped the bankers at the cost of the people, this last signing statement is no exception: Obama specifically removed any attempts to audit or control the IMF. The IMF is the third largest holder of gold in the world with 100 B$ worth, but we are sending them 8B$???????????????????

This is all about the Bankers.

He has till 2012, but it looks terrible so far.

What matters ANYTHING if democracy is replaced by Plutocracy?

[davenav]

So many things wrong with this I can't address them all.

Congress overstepped by trying to wrest control of foreign treaties from the POTUS. That's one.

Congress also put it into a spending bill, where it does not belong.

And for the love of Henry, Obama making a principled stand doesn not equal the dawn of plutocracy.

[research]

No bill is pure, get over it. It's an excuse to save the IMF from Audits and control!!!!!!

Go ahead, look up the IMF, you will be afraid.

[kassandrasduplex]

This was a FUNDING issue, NOT A TREATY. And it was about asking the Treasury to BE ACCOUNTABLE to the PURSE STRING HOLDERS. Apologize for the tyrant, MORE, apologize more. Next you can throw stones at Tim deChristopher as the Obama DoJ prosecutes a true American hero. And allows the true criminals (Bush et al) to WALK FREE.

[CarlyHope]

ACTUALLY

Imf funding was put in this bill by inhoue and obey ON OBAMA"S REQUEST. repeat, OBAMA ASKED THEM TO INCLUDE IT

[kassandrasduplex]

"And for the love of Henry, Obama making a principled stand doesn not equal the dawn of plutocracy."

Not to the blind faithful. We have been in a plutocracy for awhile, what Obama is doing is bringing down the totalitarianism.

[Ohsherri]

That's the thing.
I'm not outraged at his "signing statements' ...as all others do.
I'm more concerned about WHAT IT'S FOR!
Him and those banks!
Yikes!

[davenav]

He's not hostile to the intent of the provision, just the means it takes. It seeks to tie his hands at the bargaining table, and grants congress power it does not have today. So it is about far more than banks.

[ThunderclapNewman]

It has nothign to do with banks.

The IMF and the World Bank are international development agencies, and are not part of the government.

[Whitley2009]

Dear Mr. President: Just keep emasculating the Grand Old Pfascists with a dull razor. You're doing a great job considering the mess they left you.

[MakeAWish]

Obama, is turning into just another Bush. No difference.

[NWRICK]

Never heard that before. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[RRG64]

they are so original aren`t they?

lmao

they couldnt come up with an original thought unless they stole it from someone else, hence all the illegal wiretapping.

[davenav]

Ignorance.

[MakeAWish]

Signing statements should automatically void any bill sent to the president and should go directly back to congress. In fact, all bills sent to the president for his signature, should include a disclosure at the top of each bill stating that any signing statements will corrupt and nullify the whole bill.

[RRG64]

did you say that for the last 96 months? when Bush put more together than all his predecessors?

[MakeAWish]

Any president, I don't care which party they come from.

[rkossik]

MakeAWish, you didn't answer the question. RRG64 asked, "did you say that for the last 96 months?"

[dianhow]

WHY ?

[davenav]

This is a spending bill. I take it you like having arbitrary law pasted in to those?

[davenav]

I'll ask again -- you like having congress overstep it's bounds, trying to wrest control of the POTUS's duties and authority? You 'think' signing statements are illegal, but they are not. Are you willing to admit that your other assumptions are wrong as well?

[justsomeguywhocameby]

I'm still curious about this whole "spending bill" vs "lawmaking". I know these are both the under the purview of Congress but it's not correct procedure to dump everything in one must pass bill.

[Gatorray11]

That is nonsense. Some bills have a clause stating if any part of a bill is declared unconstitutional it does not apply to the rest of the legislation. A signing statement has no real power. If a President ignores enforcing a provision of a bill he signed , Congress, opponents and people affected by the legislation need to go to court and and challenge the President's refusal to enforce the law.

But what I am proposing is that somebody go to court and ask the courts -- ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court -- whether a President can ignore any provision of the law by simply not enforcing it.

I believe in this case Congress has no legitimate power to force a President to carry out a foreign policy it desires. But I think the Supreme Court needs to say it is an unconstitutional intrusion on the foreign policy powers of the executive. Barack Obama can't just void this provision by saying he doesn't agree with it.

[never-ever-give-up]

Congress overstepped its boundaries in those sections of the bill. It is soley the province of the President to negotiate with foreign governments. I did not see them being so strong when Bush was tearing the world as we knew it asunder. Instead of vetoing the whole bill, he took the expedient route and issued a signing statement. The signing statement has become the line item veto that Presidents have been seeking for a long time. I don't agree with his means but I do agree with his end in this case.

[dianhow]

GOP Congress gave Bush all he asked for. Now all of a sudden they developed a conscience ? Phonies - the whole bunch . .

[Ohsherri]

Congress is the W0 rst.

[CarlyHope]

UM

the IMF isn't a governmnet. Its an independent financial entity, in which the US is the main stockholder

[Sweetbay]

You are exactly right. It is congress that has overstepped its authority in two provisions in this bill, and the president is telling them they can't do that.

[Gatorray11]

That is like saying a girl is half pregnant. She either is or she isn't. You said it's like an item veto. But the point is the U.S. Constitution has no item veto. And a President is not empowered to to ignore the law.

I don't object to a President writing he disagree with what the legislators passed, but is signing the law because it is desperately needed. I may agree with him. Or I may not. I think in this case Obama has some valid points.

But what he can't do is simply ignore the law. I bet you, that is not a position he took when he was teaching constitutional law. And he rightfully chastised the worst abuser in our history -- George II -- fduring the campaign for using this fictional power. I -- and there is no bigger Barack Obama supporter -- will not stand by and let him get away with it. Bad precedent should not set legitimacy. Except in this case there really is no precedent. Presidents have gotten away with it simply because they were not challenged.

[TakeTheCanolis]

You're criticizing the wrong part of Congress. The bill tried to restrain O from further negotiating away safeguards for labor and the environment. That's not something Republicans normally do!

[harveyr2]

Yet another campaign promise broken.

He's doing everything he can to be a one term president. Obama is Bush 2.0.

[dianhow]

Rubbish Its been 5 months !!
Reagan / Bush SR / W had 20 long years to muck things up !

[harveyr2]

You missed my point. Obama promised no signing statements so this is another promise broken. Period.

The left was outraged at Bush's use of signing statements and should be equally outraged at Obama's use of the same procedure.

[Sweetbay]

Link please. When did he say he would never use a signing statement?

[jeg]

I've been a long-time supporter of Obama, but even I have to admit:

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

Mr. President... we'd like a word with you, please.

[justsomeguywhocameby]

The quote is; " I'm not going to use signing statements as end run around congress."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX6DJzt1PWU

[RRG64]

if he were really bush 2.0 you would not hear a peep out of Republicans, instead all of them are flailing and running around like the bunch of useless obstructionists they are.

[dianhow]

You got that right RR We have their ' number '

[Ohsherri]

This is true.

[davenav]

Clueless rubbish.

[ThermoChemist]

Not quite true...!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-congress/

"While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will NOT use signing statements TO NULLIFY or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."
-- Sources: The Boston Globe campaign survey on executive power, Dec. 20, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/obama_rebukes_b.html

"...While Obama said he WOULD CONTINUE the use of signing statements, he also said he would NOT use them to "nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law." He said it was "a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability."

Fact Check: President Obama Did NOT Break Signing Statement Promise
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/03/16/fact-check-president-obama-did-not-break-signing-statement-prom/

[RRG64]

very nice.

[davenav]

Thanks for that quote. It clearly shows that a lot of people should be outraged by their own bad memories rather than Obama's defence of his constitutional powers.

[jeg]

I appreciate the followup. It's certainly a more nuanced answer than the one he gave before, although I'd rather see him simply break out a red pen, write "Violates Constitutional Boundaries" across it, and send it over to the Supremes for review.

Of course, the simpler version would be a line-item veto, or to pass an amendment to the Constitution requiring bills to be single-purpose-- ie, no legislative riders.

[justsomeguywhocameby]

Someone did their homework. Now I'm gonna' copy off it.

[gotalifepost]

Government is corrupt and broken.

Change that.

[dianhow]

That will take eons . GOV'T been broken that long.
Obama has to work with the EXISTING SYSTEM as crappy as it is. !

[RRG64]

We are trying but it`s those pesky Republicans...hard to get them out of office when they continue to scare their supporters witless and even going as far to ATTACK the twin towers,murdering Americans and creatin a perceived "common enemy" so they can pretend that they keep them safe from the fake boogeyman.

Change that.

[davenav]

Change this.

[justsomeguywhocameby]

We're working on it. Jeez, give us couple more days at least.

[adamsmith3]

We'll get right on that as soon as we change human nature.

[Mikeeee]

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Whew!! That was close. Just think, making World Bank and IMF responsible to someone besides other banks. The horror.

[BlueStateMensch]

The signing statement is QUESTIONING the authority of the Legislative Branch to restrict the Executive Branch pertaining to FOREIGN POLICY.

[justsomeguywhocameby]

Mikeeee,
You misrepresent what was stated, here is the relevant portion of the 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."

[Gatorray11]

An open e-mail to President Barack Obama:

The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC

Dear Mr. President:

I am one of your strongest supporters. I believe you have accomplished more in six months  than  President Bush did in eight years.

However, Mr. President, this signing statement is totally unacceptable. It's not change I can -- much less want -- to believe in. In fact, I know you are a brilliant constitutional lawyer so, to be blunt, in all due respect, Mr. President, all I can say to you, sir, shame on you.

To begin with, signing statements are baloney -- personal respect for you and your high office -- prevents me from using stronger language.

I don't question your sincere belief that these provisions are unconstitutional. I also understand your need to sign this legislation for the reasons you outlined. You are NOT EMPOWERED to ignore the law. Therefore, I call on you to direct the Justice Department to ask the courts to have those provisions declared unconstitutional. I call on the Congress, organizations of the Democratic base, free press groups and the media itself to challenge your regime in court by seeking enforcement of these provisions. And I am asking everybody to go to court and challenge signing statements.

Mr. President, I expect better of you. I voted for you because you advocated "change you can believe in." This is not it. What happened to your promise of transparency?

Sincerely,


Ray

[lj9283]

Signing statements have been used by presidents since James Monroe in the early 1800's.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Presidential_signing_statements#_note-0

[dianhow]

0283 Some actual facts ! How refreshing Thanks

[Gatorray11]

They have. But they have no force of law and they should be challenged. George II was the old time champion of them and he did more to destroy the U.S. Constitution than any President, including Tricky Dickey I. .

Presidents can make all kind of statements in signing cremonies and I don't give a rat's behind. When they ignore the law because they believe they have "a right to do so," I get upset. If it's a President I voted for, strongly believe in and who promised me transparecy I am outraged.

Secrecy is an enemy of democracy. As a former state government reporter in Kentucky, I often used the Kentucky Open Records law -- suprisingly one of the best in the nation -- to expose corruption.

As I stated in other postings, I believe Barack Obama is opposing open record requests of the Bushista regime because he doesn't want to pay the price for releasing those documents. He believes the courts will do so. This protects his rear end from the intelligence and military communities and makes it easier to deal with Republicans How else can you explain his Justice Deparment's argument that Vice Presidents will be reluctant to cooperate with the FBI if they can be made fun off by Jay Leno or David Letterman?

But howdo you explain this action? How do you explain his denial to release the visitor logs to the White House? Mr. President where is that transparency you promised?

[Sweetbay]

Common practice in '80s
"Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented."

"Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it."

"But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. "

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

[Gatorray11]

Ronald Reagan did a lot of stupid things.One reason he got away with them is that Democrats -- instead of taking him on right away -- let him go unchallenged. Another was that the main stream media -- as consolidaton put the power to control the news in a half dozen or so news outlets -- let him get by with just about everything.

That situation has worsened. Look what went largely unreported in the George II era: The legalized theft of the 2000 election. How 9/11 happened on the watch of George II. How he used that event to lie and mislead us into the Iraq war. How a recession went on for more than a year and the main stream media ignored it until the financial meltdown made it impossible to cover up.

The third element that let Reagan get away with the BS he got away with was a conservative leaning -- at times dominating Supreme Court -- which claimed to be passive, but was active when it wanted conservative ideology to prevail. No better illustration of that came in 2000 when a partisan Republican majority on the court wrote an opinion to let George II steal Florida -- and thus the presidency.

[TimnySlagle]

" know you are a brilliant constitutional lawyer"

That's not actually true.

He's not a Constitutional attorney. He gave a Constitutional law class a lecture once, but "brilliant Constitutional" law, is not his specialty.

[BlueStateMensch]

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

[RRG64]

seems your post isn`t even remotely true.....lmao

[RRG64]

Did you write 161 letters concerning the DIShonorbable George W Bush`s signing statements?

[dianhow]

RR Agreed it truly amazes me Where were all these folks while Bush / Cheney / Greenspan & the GOP Congress brought us to to the brink of destruction with their policy of deregulation and pre emptive war. They lied us into Iraq and gave 1.5 trillion in tax cuts to Corp AMerica ( GOP base ) while fighting 2 wars .
Money we had to borrow from Communist China. Pres Clinton left W a surplus -and millions of new jobs. Bush / Cheney blew it on fat cat tax cuts and 2 wars . while
Cheneys Halliburton made billions off Iraq - some for work NOT even done.

[davenav]

Bush kept his secret and for good reason, they did not support the constitution.

This one has all the daylight on it and is fully in keeping with the constitution.

Big difference. But you knew that.

[justsomeguywhocameby]

I think Bushes actual number of Signing Statements was 125, they represent over 700 pieces of legislation he objected to.

[Gatorray11]

Progressives, liberals, American people of all persuasions please join me in my e-mail to the White House or send your own.

We don't want and can't afford to have Barack Obama go down the road of the Bushistas. Since Republicans obviously will not believe with my first sentence I encourage them to write their own statement.

I would think a good conservative -- in the Barry Goldwater model -- would be appalled by signing statements. They are a partial veto -- without any authority or legality -- by simply ignoring the law. If you don't believe that George W. Bush -- I prefer to call him George II by his rroyal behavior and by the royal chutzpah of his whole family -- used them to break the law, read the John W. Dean books about him. Dean is a true conservative and co-wrote a book with the former Arizona Senator and presidential candidate when Goldwater passed away.

[RRG64]

wheres your the 161 Bush letters you wrote?

worthless drivel.

[Sweetbay]

You're on your own, pal. I am not upset by this. I trust this man and think that he sees a problem with a part of the bill that would tie his hands when dealing with foreign governments.

I can see that he didn't want to veto an otherwise good bill because he disagreed with a condition in the bill that he saw as disadvantageous to the U.S.

[justsomeguywhocameby]

Gatorray11 ,

Signing Statements were first used by President James Monroe (#5) and have been used by every President since. If you are opposed to them Senator Specter has been attempting to outlaw them for years with no success, perhaps you should contact his office to lend your support

[rollingdivision]

Remember as Obama's minions rationalize the very actions the railed against when Bush was president: "Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.".

[RRG64]

this coming from a Republican shill? lol....

[davenav]

Blah, blah, blah.

The whole Obama is Bush argument is bull.

This action was entirely justified. Congress overstepped it's authority.

[Gatorray11]

Please let him know as I am in the above e-mail. We have to let Barack Obama and his political gurus -- Rham Emanuel and David Axelrod -- know this is totally unacceptable to his Democratic base. I am not an ideological purist. But his is not something you can compromise on. The U.S. Constitution is there for a reason. You can't acquire new executive power because you believe you are entitled executive power. And Obama -- a constitutional scholar -- knows that. This is why I am so outraged.

I can see where some Democrats need flexibility. A coal state representative might have to vote against an environmental bill. Bernie Sanders has to vote for NRA stuff because it reflects his rural Vermong constituentcies, a tobacco state legislator is not going to look favorably on smoking disclosures or restrictions.

But you can't compromise the U.S. Constitution. You can't compromise a signature issue of healthcare reform because you got a lot of campaign funds from private insurers. If they offer good coverage at an affordable price why do they fear competition?. Is it because they have 30 percent overhead compared to three percent for Medicare? Is it because they pay their CEO over $1 million? Is it because why we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world while we rank near 30 in the quality. Our mortality rate is 29. We are behind Columbia.

[Gatorray11]

I believe letting the sunshine is the best cure. That is why we need to let the President know signing statements are not accptable. Neither is healthcare reform without a public option. In the latter case we need to work on the Kent Conrads, Ben Nelsons, Max Baucuses and Ron Wydens of the world. On that issue we need to help Obama.

[TakeTheCanolis]

Well-said.

[NotProvenGuilty]

Let's be clear about a couple of things. First, no where does the Constitution say the President has absolute authority over "foreign affairs." In fact, the Legislature's war powers are extensive, while the President is only Commander in Chief. Read the document. Second, signing statements are not "simply" "opinions." They telegraph the President's actions, i.e., he/she will not abide by the legislation as it could be reasonably interpreted. If it couldn't be reasonably interpreted contrary to the President's intentions, there would be no need for the signing statement. In short, It IS like a line item veto.

SSs are not illegal, but nor are they more acceptable under Obama than they were under Bush. It was bad form under Bush and bad form now. Thankfully, there is a remedy. If a party is affected by the Executive's lack of implementation of a signing statement topic, they can file a lawsuit and appeal to the Supreme Court to determine if the President's stance that the offending clause is unconstitutional can withstand judicial scrutiny.

[dianhow]

Better yet we can all wait and see what Obama does in his first term! if you're NOT happy then -
vote him out ! Instead folks have to nit pick every thing he does / says . Like the Dick & Liz show . . Has it occurred to any of you that he has massive info & intel- on which to base his decisions. Things we know NOthing about- as it should be. So why do folks have to second guess every damn decision he makes .? After all he has on his plate - does he not deserve to do his job as best he can without constant griping ? That seems to be the GOP ' s job. In 3 1/ 2 years - I will judge him based on the ' totality ' of his accomplishments & or failures !
Does that not make sense ?

[NotProvenGuilty]

No, it does not. And I suspect you would never make the same argument replacing the name Obama with Bush. I think this is a very naive position -- we should not second guess our leaders? -- as well as a questionably democratic one.

[TakeTheCanolis]

Last year, the corporate media wouldn't allow Dennis Kucinich debate Obama and Hillary, unless they wanted to ridicule him. I see the same mindset in your post.

If Obama's record is good, you should not fear a robust debate. Given the Democrats' vast majorities in Congress, we should be getting more change worth having. But too many Democratic officials -- including Obama -- accepted corporate donations. We won't get good governance unless progressives speak out.

[Sweetbay]

Foreign affairs

Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls—subject to confirmation by the Senate—and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials. With the secretary of state, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments. On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation. Thus, President Woodrow Wilson headed the American delegation to the Paris conference at the end of World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president since then has sat down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach bilateral and multilateral agreements.

Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments, and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

The president may also negotiate "executive agreements" with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.

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

[davenav]

Nice facts for a change.

All the conventional wisdom being thrown around by supposed supporters is staggering.

Obama makes a perfectly justified signing statement and you'd think the sky fell.

[Palemoon]

And what does foreign policy have to do with a spending bill?

[TakeTheCanolis]

Article II Section 2 subsection 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

You might recall that the Republican Congress, alas, rejected President Wilson's proposed treaty that would have made the U.S. a member of the League of Nations. President Carter had to work hard to get the Panama Canal Treaty passed by the Senate. So your portrait of the president's role in foreign policy is exaggerated.

Obama's signing statement yesterday raises three questions. The first is political: why would he waste time negotiating a treaty Congress has enough votes to defeat? The other two are constitutional: who gave him the authority to interpret statutes? Marbury v. Madison (1803) held that the judicial branch is the arbiter of law. And how can he use signing statements as a backdoor line item veto? The Supreme Court held that line item vetoes are unconstitutional. Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

[TakeTheCanolis]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement#Congressional-executive_agreements_vs._treaties:

"Executive agreements" come in two varieties: congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements [SEAs] made by the President alone. Though the constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative procedure and although some noted constitutional scholars, such as Laurence Tribe, believe that CEAs are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States has considered these agreements to be valid, and that any disagreements are a political question for the executive and legislative branches to work out amongst themselves."

The SEAs are a shadowy mess. It looks Congress is ready for a fight with Obama. How far will Obama go to defy his political base of working people and young environmentalists to please Wall Street?

[Gatorray11]

You are absolutely right, and that is exactly what I am asking for. And as a strong Barack Obama suppoerter, I am asking other supporters -- especially his base -- to make it clear to him this is unacceptable.

We are not Bushista Republicans who will stand by in silence. Constitutional abuse is not acceptable. End of story.

[TimnySlagle]

"President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements,'

Yeah, but now they're OK since it's our guy in office!

You people really have no principles do you? It's just all political posturing.

[Bitsko]

Bush was criticized for his excessive use of signing statements. BTW, besides the fact that it making things up is misleading, inaccurate and can be labeled as lying, it is also dull.

[Sweetbay]

" ....President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office......."

"George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years,........"

Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

[TimnySlagle]

Well that's exactly what this guy is doing. Ignoring laws.

It was an impeachable offense when the last guy did it, now it's just a big yawn.

[lj9283]

"Through July 11, 2006, George W. Bush had objected to 807 provisions in 5 1/2 years as president. As the graph below indicates, this figure dwarfs that of any other president in U.S. history. In fact, it is greater than all previous forty-one presidents combined, who totaled slightly less than 600. Both the frequency and tone of Bush's statements have been the cause of much controversy."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Presidential_signing_statements#_note-0

[dianhow]

blah blah blah

[TimnySlagle]

Thanks for the well reasoned response.

[dsws]

Have you read the comments here? Lots of people who have strongly supported Obama are screaming mad about this signing statement. Sure it's not unanimous, but when have a bunch of Democrats ever been unanimous about anything?

[TimnySlagle]

Not one is calling for an impeachment.

That's blatant hypocrisy.

[skeptical2]

None of this is about liberal vs. conservative, Democratic vs. Republican. So stop fighting eachother. There is a much deeper and broader agenda that Obama, Bush, Clinton, et. al are pursuing, and ignoring the Constitution and the needs of us -- the citizens -- is part of the puzzle. The unrelenting Middle Eastern warfare, the bailout of the banks that created this economic mess, the increase of spying on Americans -- all of these draconian measures continue, no matter what party is in charge.

What is that hidden agenda? There are theories about the New World Order, peak oil and climate change. Any thoughts?

[4peace]

Sounds pretty right on to me. We are a one party system that represents 4% of the population.

[dianhow]

Ill informed nonsense.

[KCFreedom]

Well for one thing, the IMF and the World Bank are used as tools of imperialism and corporatism, the corporate takeover of resources of other nations. They can also be used to channel money to leaders of other nations with less (or no) scrutiny of foreign aid programs.

They lend money to countries with strings attached and if that nation doesn't follow all the rules, they get crushed by things like currency trading to blow up the value of their currency. Also, they are usually forced into a shock therapy of "privatization" to sell of publicly owned utilities, industry, and resources to western corporations. Often these are coordinated by "economic hit men" and clandestine services.

So it doesn't surprise me that Obama is covering for these entities. They are effective tools of globalists and corporatists. I think we know by now someone is calling the shots here in the U.S., and it isn't the "people".

The book "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein tells a lot of examples of these forces in action, reaping destruction on developing & third world nations.

[dianhow]

Hidden agenda ? Its not hidden. Its all about power - greed- control but Dems have NOT been in power. Reagan - Bush Sr & W had 20 long years - many with a friendly congress . The new world order term began with Bush SR In 1981 .Pres Reagan started the policy of deregulation that planted seeds to this meltdown - Bush Sr / W / Greenspan kept it going strong and added massive tax cuts to their fat cat base - Corp America ( 1.5 trillion est ) That forced us to borrow heavily from China just to run our govt. Clinton left Bush a surplus plus also Clinton had created millions of new jobs. Bush spent it on tax cuts and wars - one we were lied into. So I get so annoyed when folks ready to crucify OBama. WE need NOT bother -
the GOP is doing that for you . So lets see ..
GOP in power = 20 years vs Obama 5 months !!! PLEASE !

[RRG64]

exactly.....

how do you know Obama`s on the right track?

from the primordial screams of the lunatic Republican clerics.

[TakeTheCanolis]

I'm sure Obama will not use signing statements as irresponsibly as Bush. But that's not the issue. The issue is that he's using them as a line item veto -- according to his view of the Constitution. What do you think will happen in future presidencies, when we certainly won't have someone with benevolent feelings toward the common welfare, or the Constitution? We just had such a president for eight disastrous years. And now Obama is institutionalizing these filthy signing statements.

Before Reagan, signing statements were little more than "triumphal proclamations" by the president when he signed a bill into law. Reagan took the advice to use signing statements in a brave new way, from one of his Justice Department attorneys named Samuel Alito (yes, that Samuel Alito, now a Supreme Court Justice).

We need to get back to the original, harmless use of signing statements. If we don't, we'll get future presidents like Bush the Lesser, who will disregard the clear, plain language of the bills he signs -- and even bills signed long ago. (A famous example of the latter type was the FISA Act of 1978 banning warrantless wiretapping. Bush mocked this law, saying: "It's 2006! It's a different world!")

[persimmon8]

The 'entrenched powers that be' do not have the same agenda as the world's people. They are groups, countries and religions used to having control and domination. Hey it's primate territorial behavior stuff wanting control over the last of the world's resources. We need to all connect somehow and start organizing ourselves globally. Check out Avaaz.org for a beginning.

'Everybody-all-at-once' is the only power that can bypass and righten the world situation and create global peace and justice.

[Sweetbay]

What is that hidden agenda? There are theories about the New World Order, peak oil and climate change. Any thoughts?
___________________________________________________

Yes. Paranoia.

"The New World Order" is about the changing economic and military status of emerging countries. Through globalization these emerging markets now enjoy a middle class and economic power that was only realized by the U.S.

The term means it's a changing world.

[TakeTheCanolis]

Did you notice that other countries' middle classes are growing at the expense of OUR middle class? If not, just ask any resident of Flint, Michigan.

You can thank the insane, regional & global trade agreements by Reagan, Bush-41 and mainly Clinton for that destruction. Btw, we're not the only nation with a middle class. Western Europe and Japan have a middle class, thanks to trade unions. Every President from Reagan on has trashed our labor unions. With his signing statement two days ago, it looks like Obama will follow in that tradition.