House Overwhelmingly Rejects Obama Signing Statement

The Hill:

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

Read the whole story: The Hill

Comments

[magic3400]

Wow, he got on his "bi-partisianship" on this one.

[DUSAA-1775]

Obama broke a campaign pledge??? I am shocked!

[Luvial]

Obama=Bush

[SonnyBono]

Mr. President - if you don't like a bill, veto the darn thing and then see if Congress will override your veto. These signing statements that attempt to nullify the effect of a law enacted by Congress are UNCONSTITUTIONAL - and Bush Jr. should NEVER have been allowed to get away with them when he scrawled all over countless other laws. For a Constitutional lawyer and scholar, you should know better and as a supporter, I certainly expected better of you in your first year in office.

Try to do better and pay more attention to the spirit and letter of the US Constitution. You will note that it does give you a heck of a lot of power without you resorting to Bush Jr. tactics in a shameful attempt to grab a little more.

My best to the wife and kids,

Your pal,

Sonny

[keepemhonest]

Sonny,

Did you complain when W. Bush issued 161 signing statements? I did & I do now.

[SonnyBono]

Yes, I did and often - but then I expected such extra legal BS from the Bush - Cheney gang. My complaint about President Obama's action is that I expected more from him - I voted for him and still support him but this whole business about signing statements should be eliminated completely. I still remember basic civics - Congress enacts the laws - the President does not ( yes, I know Executive Orders and all the other powers of the office) but from a strictly Constitutional viewpoint - if Obama doesn't like the laws he should veto it and try to get his version passed.

I disliked Bush Jr. (Senior too) and this may have colored my reactions to him and his acts but I always believed that the signing statements meant to distort the meaning of laws was unconstitutional and an attempt by the Bush administration to grab even more power. Just because I like Obama doesn't mean that I am going to accept the signing statements that he wants to write.

[S1m0n]

An unconstitutional law is unenforceable, period. There is no need for the president to veto anything. I have no idea where the erroneous idea that using the presidential veto is the president's obligation in this situation, but it's not the truth.

Constitutional disputes get settled by courts, not by power struggles. The veto is a contest of power. Whether the president vetos legislation says nothing about it's lawfulness, and the the same is true whether or not that veto is overridden. This is not the solution.

What is the solution is taking the dispute to court. If congress and the president differ, they can pass a law. If the president refuses to abide by it, congress can take him to court. There, the third branch will issue a ruling, which will (in theory) be grounded in the law, not in a naked power struggle.

[BlueStateMensch]

I baked President Obama when he wanted to veto Congress's attempt to override his authority to determine who & how many members of Congress had access to classified information supplied by the Intelligence community.... but I agree with CONGRESS when it is compelling the President to support the Congress's mandate that the World Bank strengthens labor and environmental standards & that they require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities.

Enough is ENOUGH when it comes to the World bank & the IMF & the CORRUPTION that was allowed to metastasize within these organizations during the Bush Administration.

PRESIDENT OBAMA.. do your DUTY!

[BlueStateMensch]

I 'BACKED" the President.... not 'baked".... although I would, in this case, preferred BROILED. ;)

[Luvial]

Maybe Congress shold "withhold" our tax dollars instead of "demanding".

[bascombe]

Obama went from triumphant to pathetic in three months.

[keepemhonest]

bascombe,

Don't expect to agree 100% with any president - or any person for that matter. Obama is not pathetic.

[Carolab]

Finally, Congress asserts itself.

[Roguewolf]

“What George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he’s been saying ‘well I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part,” Obama said last year during a campaign stop. “I’m gonna’ choose to interpret it this way or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

[Chopin]

Can you complete this reference by providing a web-link for people to check?

[rharris513]

Can't you check it yourself on Google? I found it.

[alfreds]

There is nothing wrong and unconstitutional with signing statements. It gives the executive branch a level of power that can be very helpful and constructive vis-a-vis the legislature. It is the abuse of this power by the Bush administration that was deplorable. Bush's abuse of signing statements was the only way to keep his system of fraud against the constitution under the cover of war-powers running. We should not put the cart before the horse and overreact to a probelm that does not exist. As far as I am aware of this is the president's first signing statement, he has a long ways to go and even won't come close to Bush's record.

[george389]

seriously why do you just copy these things from other websites and paste them? have u ever in your life had an original thought?

[futate01]

...continued

Months passed, Obama raised insane amounts of money, beat the odds, and became president. Hmmmm? The next day I wondered, but still, Obama's words dissuaded me from considering any conspiracy, but then came the bank bailouts, the Iraq pullout, Afghanistan, Guantanamo bay, reversals on health care, patriot act, personal freedoms, etc, etc.

Suddenly today I'm concerned. The worldwide financial "theft" was too well orchestrated to be a fluke, and Obama's actions go against any common sense for anyone who is educated and understands the process. I still can't wrap my mind around it, but I'm starting to dread the reality that the Zeitgeist documentary was far more accurate than I ever thought. Implementing Occam's Razor the simplest path leads to Obama looking more and more like puppet being controlled by the wizard(s) from behind the curtain.

[duxguts]

Yes, he's a fraud, just like all those who came before him.

[keepemhonest]

HA HA HA HA HA ... you must have been in a coma during 2008!

George Bush authorized the bank bailouts which began in March 2008 with Bear Stern - the AIG - then the rest. Bush issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER that mandated GM (auto) be bailed out. Bush created the CAR CZAR under his Auto Exec. Order AND Bush's Auto Exec. Order mandated that normal bankruptcy court be bypassed & all details worked out by March 2009.

President Obama was elected BECAUSE he would pull our troops out of the "war for oil" & put our troops in Afghanistan (which is where the folks who invaded us on 9/11 are from)

Health care issue is being fought by the GOPers.

Under Bush YOU & I lost personal freedoms NOT Obama.

Did you know the world is not flat?

[keepemhonest]

futateo1

Hey, guess what - the world is not flat. You might want to take of your tin foil hat & join the human race now?

[Birdman]

Seems to me something is upside down here/.. Bush used signing statements to break the law an no one said anything now all of a sudden congress grows a back bone? Well all I can say is time you are were replaced, simply because you think you can get away with it now you act.. Too late, goodbye, never again hope you all like your retirement.. We the people are sick of all of you.

[alfreds]

Well said!
Its deplorable how all this republican deadhaeds are crawling out of their hibernation trying to capitalize on a beaten down economy to foster their selfish partisan agenda. I am not saying that the democrats are completely innocent of what is happening in the economy but after all it was the Bush admin that called the shots during the last 8 years (6 with help from a republican Tom Bulldog Delay congress). They did nothing against the fraud that happened on Wall Street and focused instead on adventurous foreign policy charade. Bush's abuse of the signing statements were an important part in keeping this charade going.

[jestanle]

Uhhh learn grammer before you bash people

[Knowitall]

One very important thing Pres. Obama got out of this was a--BI-PARTISAN VOTE. A hugh one. In the long run, the issue surrounding this vote will be forgotten and so will the words of the signing statement. But, a hugh bi-partisan vote has been forever recorded in the house in 2009. Republicans can claim 'til they choke, that they voted AGAINST the President--but they still voted WITH the Democrats in a convincing bi-partisan manner against a tactic Bush used once a week.

(Remember all the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war, and later regretted it? Too late. The wording of the resolution, your reasoning for voting yes, and the atmosphere at the time is unimportant, that moment is lost. But you are forever recorded as being part of the BIPARTISAN vote FOR the war. The Republicans played this political tactic like a fiddle, over and over again.)

Like I said, sometimes you get what you want, by not getting what you want.

[mamala4]

I hate to say it but I have become increasingly disappointed in Obama...I campagined for him, made donations and voted for him, but I would like to know where the jobs are and why is he giving so much money to the banks, AIG and others when people still cannot find jobs.

[BuzzingAlong]

Why don't you call the office of the Governor of your state and ask where the jobs are? You surely know that the stimulus money has bennd distributed to the states? Try keeping up.

[Luvial]

A lot of people were hustled by Obama.

[DofG]

This is a good step for the congress. But where were their 'balls' when GW used the constitution for toilet paper?

[mikeant50]

Well said. These are the same Dems who gave Bush everything he wanted. I as a Dem have no respect for them.

[keepemhonest]

ditto

[dsws]

In this case, and in many but not all of Bush's violations of the Constitution, it's a matter of defending congressional turf against presidential encroachment. For the Democrats, that overrides partisanship; for the Republicans, it doesn't.

[ObamAtomic]

In their back. :) they removed, put them in the back packet.
I wonder,is under investigation what they did with their*balls*.
LOL!

[magic3400]

"House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote".

...429-2, 429-2 in a Democratic House, 429-2!

I thought I might have been wrong when I said his advisors were letting him down, but when you lose this big, there is something wrong with the advice he is getting.

It's time to take a real hard look at Rahm Emanuel and ask if he is a capable Chief of Staff.

[Cybersquirt]

It's time to take a hard look at ...who?

[Chopin]

I doubt that Rahm Emanuel could influence the President's political instincts and constitutional convictions in such fundamental ways. It has something to do with a person's worldview and fundamental beliefs. They are guided by a person's moral compass and core beliefs.

If a cowboy holds those views regarding "signing statements", and he understands their iimplications and acts accordingly, it would be easier for people to understand. But if a widely acclaimed, venerated, distinguished American constitutional scholar as President of the United States today holds those views and beliefs, then the American people are in deep voodoo, and American democracy is imperiled in deeper ways than most people would suspect. This alarming phenomenon calls for wide-ranging and soul-searching in-depth debates among the people.

Benjamin Francklin, when asked if his emerging nation was a republic or monarchy, said thoughtfully, "A republic, if you can keep it." That was addressed to the American people, 2009, and succeeding generations.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=a+republic+if+you+can+keep+it&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g6
.

[magic3400]

The role of an adviser is to advise, if the President is this tone deaf, then he better have someone around that can "bring him back to his senses". If I'm to understand your point, he went this route regardless of what his staff advised?

Maybe, or maybe he just got bad advise and followed it. Either way, it's not good!

[Chopin]

In head-to-head dispute and confrontation between President and House of Representatives over vital issue of distribution of power, over foreign policy or any other issue, people's representatives should have the last say. After all, in vibrantly functioning democracy, over 400 people's representatives are pragmatically and functionally much closer to sentiments and views of the whole electorate. No matter how much the President considers this issue to be in his wisdom and constitutional prerogative to override the explicit will of the people as expressed in legislations, the temptation for one chief executive to override the collective wishes of the electorate is scary thought indeed.

If any collective lesson is learned by the American people over the arrogant abuse of the unrestrained use of "signing statements" by the President over the past 8years to circumvent people's legislative dictates, this is the time and circumstances to put a stop to this dangerous undemocratic trend. If not, the American Republic, in name only, would surely slide into an evolutionary downward spiral to follow in historical footsteps of the Roman Republic become an empire through the unchallenged exercise of "unitary executive powers" of an unrestrained emperor, eventually acclaimed as President Augustus Imperator by a docile Congress. Symbolic title and sceptor would follow the established entrenched and unchallenged use of "presidential signing statements" (called edicts in the Roman Empire). History would not be kind to the American people and this democracy if imperial power is ceded voluntarily to President of United-States-of-America.