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

[Rob Warmowski - Huffpost Blogger]

I did a HuffPo piece about this signing statement last month, and a new piece today.

Today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warmowski/well-you-wanted-bipartisa_b_229866.html

Last month:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warmowski/president-obamas-clear-ab_b_221836.html

-r

[Chopin]

Excellent cross-reference to your blog articles. I've read them, and urge others to read and comment on the substance of the troubling trend in signing statements discussed in your blog articles.

[revhatchell]

take that president obushma!

[Marnie1]

Too bad the RepoWeenies didn't have what it takes to vote on a measure when they ruled Congress.

However, it is a step forward to controling an Imperial Presidency. Many more such steps need to be taken and Obama needs to remember why he was elected.

In a word. "Change."

[mrbadmood]

Is it possible that President Obama just might be playing the GOP for suckers?

Looks to me like he may be attempting to undo the Bush Doctrine by nullification. He is a constitutional lawyer, after all.

[Cybersquirt]

Looks to me like he's taking us for suckers. Using one of Bush's ugliest tactics leaves me skeptical.

BTW, he taught classes in constitutional law; where does it say he was a "constitutional" lawyer?

[Knowitall]

"It" doesn't have to say it. He practiced law for awhile before joining the Illinois legislature. Let's hope that any lawyer who teaches constitutional law, would be a "constitutional" lawyer.

[toxicbrainpoison]

This is Awesome. With labor and environmental standards the world bank and IMF may actually do some good in the world, instead of aggressively wrecking it the way they have been. Yay!

[Cybersquirt]

You mean profiting like pigs. And, indeed -- no thanks to a certain President.

[marignymitch]

I'm impressed. But where were these votes 2001-2009?

[Rule Of Law]

apparently Obama doesn't have his own private hit squad to keep Congress in line.

[learneddemocrat]

Ah, but he does. They must have just been sleeping at the wheel or took the day off. Or perhaps, just this once they grew go....nads and said not this time.

[kindmind]

I wonder what his reasoning was...anyway, is this going to be a main topic of the gop mudslinging fest in 2010

[SurrealPumpkin]

The reasoning is in the full article. It's a constitutional issue, the President is the one responsible for foreign policy. This bill overrides that.

[Cybersquirt]

then he should not have signed it.

[MuchMadness]

I find no support in the constitution for the idea that "the president is the one responsible for foreign policy."

According to the constitution, treaties require not only the advice but also the consent of the U.S. Senate. The president's appointment of ambassadors and other officials is subject to the approval of the senate. The power to declare war, and therefore by implication the power to revoke authorization for war, is granted to the congress, not to the president. The congress has power to regulate the military and to impose tariffs.

Under our constitution, despite modern trends, the president is not all that and a bag of chips.

[MuchMadness]

Do we need to bring back that song "I'm Just a Bill on Capitol Hill" from Schoolhouse Rock to encourage our leaders to read the constitution again?

Signing statements are silly and anticonstitutional. They amount to a declaration by the president that he will refuse to faithfully execute a portion of the law which he is approving by his very action of the signing the bill .

All arguments supporting signing statements are nothing more than sophistry.

There is no line item veto. There is no constitutional justification for picking and choosing which parts of a law to respect and enforce.

You would think that President Obama, having taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, would know this.

The constitution gives the president three options: sign, veto, or ignore. If the president ignores the bill, it becomes law after ten days, excluding Sundays, unless the congress has adjourned to prevent return of the bill, in which case the bill does not become law.

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated ..." (Article 1, section 7)

[YewNeekId]

Good, thoughtful post. thanks

[Knowitall]

Pres. Obama knows that. He criticized signing statements during the campaign. That's very interesting isn't it? I'd like to know his motives? Every President knows which way the wind is blowing before he signs a bill, or issues a signing statement, especially one which is destined to have such a lop sided outcome. He is, and is surrounded by, some of the most politically astute advisers that have ever been in the White House. This is very, very interesting........something to watch.

[Chopin]

That's a good statement of the REASONS for or against using signing statements. From a historical perspective, the intricate reasons might be lost in the evolution of the republic. All people know are the EFFECTS of such actions and practices. The "divine right of kings" was a concept and practice whose origins might be obscure, but whose effects were literally a matter of life and death for the people. All it takes to go from here to there, beginning willy-nilly with widespread, systematic and sustained abuse of "presidential signing statements", enforced by lack of Congressional opposition, entrenched through different presidential administrations, and eventually encrusted in unbreakable, unquestioned, and unmitigated monarchical "divine right of kings", in practice if not in terminology. That's why Benjamin Franklin over two centuries ago said it as a supposition, that the United States of America is a republic (and not a monarchy), . . . IF YOU CAN KEEP IT !

[alfreds]

Sometimes lawmakers cannot find enough common ground without making certain concessions to the other party to support a bill. The result is a 'yes-but' legislation: Yes we support the bill but only if we get this or that. Instead of criticizing signing statements as anticonstitutional why dont you object to incomplete and incomprehensive bills being sent to the president's desk? Singing statements if not abused (this one does not count as abuse no matter how hard you republican deadheads are trying) are a helpful tool by the executive branch to counter legislative impotence, in complete coherence with the constitution.

[MuchMadness]

In other words, when the constitutional framework isn't producing the results that you desire, simply ignore the constitution. Sorry, but I cannot subscribe to a utilitarian model of government that glorifies results over the rule of law.

[wijg]

americanistheonlyparty1 says "So that ultimately makes it ok for BO to do so... hey kids, do not steal unless you see someone else steal. Good way of viewing life lefties."
---------------------------------
No, it doesn't make it okay... As a liberal, I've called out Obama more times than not (read the comments in my profile). As a matter of fact I quoted Obama saying he would not use signing statements.
I have to say, coming from a bushbot, your assumption is pretty rich.

[SurrealPumpkin]

In fairness, Obama said he would not use signing statements unless there was a constitutional issue. He says there is on this bill.

[Chopin]

Of course there are times and issues that SEEM reasonable for the President to exercise "signing statements". But the naked truth about the central nature of a presidential signing statement is to selectively override, circumvent, contravene or ignore some provisions of a law. Each time when that awesome power is exercised by the President, it sets and reinforces a precedent. One should be keenly aware of the inevitable pitfall of setting and reinforcing precedents, in matters of jurisprudence and constitutional balance of powers.

Take the analogy of the deplorable and tragic state of the explicit exclusive power and constitutional prerogative of Congress -- not the President, nor the VP, nor the Supreme Court, to declare war? In the past 70 years, and in starting over a dozen major and minor wars, when did Congress seriously debate and explicitly "declare war" on another nation, for the President to start a war? We all see the progressive erosion of that exclusive power by the force of precedents, and their real-life tragic consequences for the nation and the people.

Haven't people learned anything from the past 8years of unbridled cynical and arrogant abuse of "presidential signing statements" and their lingering long-lasting tragic legacy?

[dave1111]

Sarah started to write a signing statement, but quit before she finished.

[Anni-Frid]

Gov. of Alaska has a line-item veto, no need for signing statements.

[dave1111]

You had 3 swings, all misses, so you're...... out.

[psnyder]

Where were Congress's 'nads when Bush was signing-statement happy and thought he had a line-item veto on legislation? Oh, right, in Bush's hands. I guess Democrats are better at standing up to an executive of their own party than Republicans are, huh?

[dave1111]

Looks that way.

[DannyRose]

Yes, which is why we vote Dem and not Rethug.

[jdw1981]

Good! Obama should not be allowed to follow Dubya's example of cheating and skirting the law.

He's a Democratic President and should start acting like one.

[Anni-Frid]

The two biggest defenders of the Bush administration and it's policies are Cheney and Obama.

Cheney through his words and Obama through his actions.

[DannyRose]

There's some validity to that statement.

[SurrealPumpkin]

Let's hear it for the judiciary which so far has knocked down everyone of Bush's arguments as presented by the Obama DoJ. By the time this is over there will be several case books of judicial opinion saying NO! you can't do that.

[peaceplez]

Wonderful news! Delighted to see Congress come out in such overwhelming numbers against
Obama's outrageous signing statement.

[Cybersquirt]

Good for them! Signing statements need to be abolished if they're going to be ABUSED in this manner.