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

[bubbuh]

Expressing an opinion is not unconstitutional and that is what a signing statement is, an opinion. If Congress thinks Obama is not enforcing the law or contravening the law, they can certainly take him to court. Or, they can pass unitary legislation about the omnibus sections he finds objectionable. The, he must either sign or veto. And, they can override, or not.

btw, the Supreme Court has from time to time taken Presidential signing statements into consideration when adjudicating the constitutionality of legislation. Most recently, Scalia, the "originalist", freaked everyone out by doing that very thing.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1155732412882

[Weirdwriter]

I think I love you. In the strictly agape way, of course.

[bubbuh]

Loved your Journey to the Moon!

[dave1111]

Thanks for the link. bubbuh.

[LeeCalif]

Baloney. It is not expressing an opinion. It is stating a new fact IN ADDITION to the new legislation.

[bubbuh]

That's not what the Supremes say. So, PHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[theclosetconservative2]

When George W. Bush was in office and I read about signing statements, I always got the feeling that it was a back door form of a line item veto. If President Obama and his collegues in Congress ever get to a point of really being at odds over something, this could play out in an interesting way. http://theclosetconservative.com

[donaldw6]

You got that feeling because that's how bush used them.

[Palemoon]

Funny, I make the argument that signing statements are tatamount to legislative action by the President.

I get attacked by you folks backing Obama on this, not specifically by you yet, but likeminded people.... and yet you folks have the gall to say it's not legislating from the Oval Office when Obama does it, but it was legislating from the Oval Office when Bush did it?

Or do you disagree with your fellow posters who also take the same side as you?

[D-V-H]

When Bush was in office the back door was the US populace.

[Weirdwriter]

Indeed. The President is a bonafide scholar of Constitutional Law. He knows better than to pull this rabbit out of his hat too regularly, but now Congress knows he will, no t that he can.

[Weirdwriter]

Sigh. Meant to say "not just he can." I need to go sit out on the verandah and drink a Dark 'n' Stormy.

[RuinedSaint]

If you are truly against signing statements, contact your state senators and insist that they support the Presidential Signing Statements Act introduced by Sn. Specter; the bill has stalled in committee twice now and can use the support.

If you are just griping because a signing statement wish issued by a democratic president, a black president, or a black democratic president, but don't want this power taken away just in case your regional party wins a future election, then just keep posting your misguided rage here for our entertainment.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Quite logical, Mr. Spoke. Quite logical.

[TimeToPunt]

Mr Spoke??

[RuinedSaint]

Indeed.

[KewlJoJo]

It is entertaining to see them attack Obama's first use of SS when they defended Bu$hs abuse of same for eight years.

[wisecrack]

You had to throw in the black president, of course. And, you were doing so well.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Shhhhhhh. Obama is BBBBBBBLACK. He is BBBBLLLLAAACK. Black, I tell you. He is Black.

shh. Don't tell anyone else

LOL

[RuinedSaint]

Combine "black" with "regional party" and the hidden sudtlety of my post becomes a bit more clear.

[donaldw6]

The only problem with signing statements is Congress doesn't push back when they're used abusively. Like most things, it only works well when used by people with integrity, and when there's a general lack of integrity the whole thing falls apart.

[HASSASSIN]

To KarenMalone, KillbillV2 and Niko Pitney are together??

I am sad now;;(

[HASSASSIN]

Karen Malone you there?

[wisecrack]

Gone. Would you put up with the abuse?

[ladybastet]

(-)

[Greg01]

Man what a weird rumour. But dude lets not pretend that you ever had a chance being with KillBill to begin with.Lmao

[NWRICK]

Lawyer G*ns and Money
Always a good time for Warren.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5puAN1PGQw&NR=1

[rampage]

I have always loved that song.

[ladybastet]

Wow'! I've never hear that before =O It's rare that I see something new in music (or so it seems =P)

Thank you for that =D

[TimeToPunt]

It's not a new song, dear. It was "new" back in the 70s. :^-)

[bubbuh]

In old wrinkly homes it's sours, gums and runny.

[KO4Pres]

I'm in love with his speaking voice.........!! Make me write bad checks.

[seehowtheyrun]

Karen Malone; So you say you were posting on message until she (lady B) replied to you with those
false claims ?

Not true. Unless you consider this posting on message:

That was the only post of yours on this thread that was even remotely related to the story.

Now, why don't you be a big girl, and not let lady b's s.ticks and s.tones bother you and move along.

[rampage]

Ummm, I do beleive she is long gone

[wisecrack]

Gotta admit, she stole the show. I think lady was jealous (just between you and me).

[seehowtheyrun]

Hope so, but I used a bracket which cut some of my post.

[seehowtheyrun]

Sorry for the partial repost.

Karen Malone; So you say you were posting on message until she (lady B) replied to you with those
false claims ?
Aww I feel sorry for you guys, really believing the Change you can believe in logo of the Obama admi. LOL!

Not true. Unless you consider Aww, I feel sorry for you guys, really believing the change you can believe in logo of the Obama admin. LOL! posting on message.

That was the only post of yours on this thread that was even remotely related to the story.

[Turnip]

Obama using a signing statement is completely different than when Bush did it.


Obama was actually elected.

[MrPeebles]

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

Get a new angle !

[adey]

There IS that....

[D-V-H]

DETAILS!!!

hola

[dave1111]

Because he was elected does not give him the power to usurp the SCOTUS.

[adey]

WE usurped the power of the SCOTUS by turning out in such numbers they couldn't rig the vote again.

[Weirdwriter]

You keep posting that and ignoring substantive responses. You can't handle the truth.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

LOL . . .

[Hypatia-Of-Alexandria]

RuinedSaint: "I still want to see Rep. Boehner under a black light... Anyone know which strip clubs he sneaks off to during lunch?"

The airport mens room.

[ladybastet]

HAHAHAHA! =) Does he have a WIDE stance eh?

[Weirdwriter]

Ok. I'll give credit where due. That was good.

[njb444]

XD

[PeteSLA]

Ha ha ha! Obama sold me out so I'm lashing out at Republicans with gay jokes!

It kills the pain of having my "hope" for "change" dashed.

[JohanD]

This Afghan / Pakistan war t has been sought by the US and is just another excuse to direct hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon, the defense industry and all their lobbyist in Washington. You cannot put people in power there and then all we do is attack parts of their population. President Obama falls for the same old BS that successive governments in the US have been doing for decades. There is nothing new here, just bending over like the Bush Presidencies have been doing for over a decade.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Perhaps the wars are an excuse, but as long as we have troops there, real live, living men and women, the wars needed to be funded.

[D-V-H]

The way we ended the VietNam w.ar was to stop funding it. That forced Nixon to seek an out.

[donaldw6]

That all depends on whether the forces reveal themselves to be honing in on Al Qaeda, or floundering in another quagmire. We'll need a year to get a good picture about that.

[sharonh]

You speak of that conflict so simply. Why don't you realize it is more complicated than we can know. The Taliban should be disbanded and disarmed for the women and girls, and any guy who wants to shave and not marry.

[sharonh]

You speak of that conflict so simply. Why don't you realize it is more complicated than we can know. TheTaliban should beDisbanded andDisarmed for the women and girls, and any guy who wants to shave and not marry, in other words, for humanitarian reasons.

[LITU]

I am on record as being against signing statements. But, in this case, I agree with the President. Those sections of the Bill were an open attempt to stymie the Executive's flexibility. More obstructionism as far as I could determine.

Another obvious difference between the present POTUS and his knuckle-dragging predecessor is that the current didn't hide behind obfuscation.

[Kaczar]

You were against it before you were for it... that has a familiar tone.

[RattleCat]

Considering you only know two tunes, no big surprise.

[LITU]

Go take a time out, and come back when you're old enough to join in the fray.

[LITU]

Oh BTW, read the Bill. Then your insulting comment will have some weight.

[ElStinko]

I am against signing statements too but if congress can't muster the backbone to shut them down, why shouldn't my team's President take advantage of them after 8 years of Bush making up his own version of congressional legislation with out a peep from the repugs. It would be quite simple for congress to stop them...each bill would be sent with the first words stating that if the President attempts to sign with caveat signing statements, that bill will be considered vetoed and that no money will be budgeted for any part of its implementation or enforcement. If the President doesn't like a provision of a bill, he could not sign the bill or simply do what they have always done..not enforce that part of it and face the consequences in court, congress or the ballot box.

But, with the democratic and repugnigan members bought and paid for by the insurance and corporated interests over the electorate, don't hold out any hopes. sign on, Mr. President. the punks won't do nuthin'.

[kewe]

wait a minute. this is total nonsense. every president used signing statements. its a question how frequently and for what purpose. Bush wasn't criticized for using them. he was criticized for how MANY

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Not only for how many, but the actual context of the statement.

[KewlJoJo]

750 apparently.

[mouselion]

Or, as many as 1200.

[lj9283]

Bush issued more signing statements than all of the Presidents that proceeded him combined.

[athenasword]

Ah, a helpful little insight!

[wgsalter]

Bush issued more some years than others. He had 159 in all, or just under 20 per year on average. Here's the list: http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm
To date, in 5+ months, Obama has issued 7 of them. You are totally correct that all presidents use them. And, in defense of those presidents, including Bush and Obama, if a bill is passed that the president wants to sign into law because it has good parts, but know that there are parts that are flawed not in terms of policy but in terms of constitutionality, a signing statement is a good way of communicating that concern. The Solicitor General may be called upon later, when the legal issue is ripe, to argue why a portion of a bill is unconstitutional.

[rampage]

Karen Malone, if proving who you are is really that important to you then post
a myspace or a facebook page as Andrea Castillo and ladybastet have both done.

It's that simple.

Otherwise folks will decide for themselves.

[ladybastet]

If she does that I will admit that I was wrong, but until then I am CERTAIN I've seen that photo and http://www.fashiongates.com/ is where I saw it.

[Weirdwriter]

Yes. That's called taking it outside, where it belongs. Thank you.

[KO4Pres]

I believe you are correct, Lady...

Did you see the 6 yo on the 1st page? Sick!!!

[KO4Pres]

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

I believe you are correct, Lady...

Did you see the 6 yo on the 1st page? SikhSikhSikh!!!

[KewlJoJo]

“President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he
took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it
conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”

When Obama gets close to that I'll get worried.

[Weirdwriter]

Fanned.

[ThunderclapNewman]

Bingo!

[rampage]

Man o man it's like being in with a bunch of 6th graders here today.

Usually it's me who act's completely immature.

I guess I will savor the moment.

heh

[ladybastet]

LOL! I think you actually get into f1ghts. REAL ones =P

[wisecrack]

This is exactly how politicians want us - distracted.

[Weirdwriter]

You would know. You're here at your GOP masters' behest.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

One then wonders what the motives are of BOTH parties. Two apparently opposing views engaging in the same prolonged battle from a week ago.

Seems pretty d#$@ immature, IMHO.

[BlueStateMensch]

For those who feel that "Signing Statements" are the same as "Line Item Vetoes"....

A "VETO" (it has to be the ENTIRE BILL... as 'line item' is ILLEGAL) negates the legislation & it is RETURNED to Congress to either rewrite it or OVERIDE the veto.

A "Signing Statement" is when the President believes some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore he intends to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is Constitutional.

See the difference?

Good.

[dave1111]

It's not up to the POTUS to decide constitutionality, that's for the SCOTUS.

See the difference?

Good.

[RuinedSaint]

He's a constitutional scholar; if Congress wants to insist that the bill is Constitutional, they can file with the courts.

It's happened before; no reason to not do it now.

[KewlJoJo]

So yer goin to court right?

[Gordon]

he shouldn't enact legislation he believes to be unconstitutional

[BlueStateMensch]

You STILL aren't getting it.. by using a signing statement... the President is not NEGATING the legislation.. NOR is he CHANGING it.... he is merely stating his CONCERN that certain ASPECTS might be Unconstitutional & that he intends either to ignore enforcing these aspects (restricted to HIS role in them) or to implement them in a manner that falls within the boundaries of what he feels IS Constitutional.

This IS within his purview.

It is a right the Executive has been using since MONROE.. & the SCOTUS has ruled as to its legitimacy.

[dave1111]

And shame on you BlueState.

[BlueStateMensch]

Why?

[Weirdwriter]

If you're jealous there are a number of online classes you can take to improve your debating skills.

[notAMoron]

Regardless of the President's education, constitutionality is decided by the courts. The executive in effect is supposed to enforce the laws enacted by congress. The signing statement above is just the president explicitly saying that he plans to look the other way rather than enforce the law.

[RuinedSaint]

"Regardless of the President's education, constitutionality is decided by the courts."

So Congress and the White House can just run around willy-nilly, doing whatever they want, without any regard for the Constitution until SCOTUS steps in and puts their foot down?

[Gordon]

signing statements which state that pres will not follow parts if a law he just enacted are analogous to line item vetoes. both procedures pick and choose which part of the legislation to enact or enforce. SCOTUS ruled the line item unconst because it violates the presentment clause. Depending on the wording of the signing statement, the same could in this situation.

[LITU]

And that's when the SCOTUS steps in.

[BlueStateMensch]

Not so.

Line Item would NEGATE the law.

SSs do NO SUCH THING.