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

[huffy2001]

Where was all the congressional outrage during the hundreds, if not thousands, of signing statements issued by W? I find the hypocrisy of our government representatives shocking. Just shocking.

[dave1111]

Maybe they were prevented, by a signing statement.

[george389]

you're a hypocrite

[huffy2001]

sorry I can't be more like you, oh great and perfect one...

[wijg]

You know what I'd like to see. How many bush signing statements took place after 2006.

I'm too lazy to look it up.

[PATina]

Probably the most. You know the Dems can't do anything unless they have 70 votes or more.

[prscnt1]

Remember the Patriot act? That gave the nut all the power he needed to arrest the whole congress, go read the fine print. Bush was tempting the congress to exercise his power.... Congress had to keep mum.

[naschkatze]

Whatever Congress's reasons (and I guess they differ along party lines), it was wrong under Bush and it is wrong for Obama now too. Of all things, just because Bush got away with terrible things is no rationale for allowing Obama to do the same.

[wijg]

Good post, you're right.

[BurtonOerney]

The president has a legitimate constitutional objection to the congressional attempt to control international negotiations. Signing statements are not illegal and should not become illegal because congress is not allowed to command the president to abide by unconstitutional legislation.

It's funny nobody cares what the statement actually says. Free trade advocates getting all het up are funniest of all. The statement is an attempt to avoid the same disasterous Smoot Hawley-like protectionism that congress managed to ram through at about this far into the 1929 recession. Free market believers might want to look that up and reevaluate the wisdom of the signing statement.

[Helzapoppin]

Sure he can object, but as he himself has argued concerning other issues, he cannot just decide on his own not to follow the law as passed. Might want to brush up on the whole "separation of powers" concept. The President can sign or veto a law. It's up to the Judiciary to settle disputes of Constitutionality.

[peaceplez]

Exactly.

[PiscesPrincess]

Finally, someone with a brain. Thank you So much. hear hear Burton.

[naschkatze]

Then he shouldn't have signed the bill into law. Since it now is law, he is bound by the Constitution to uphold the laws of the land.

[Helzapoppin]

Exactly. If he thought it was unconstitutional, he should have vetoed the bill. If Congress overrides the veto, then he can file suit and the judiciary will determine constitutionality. That's how separation of powers is supposed to work.

[dave1111]

Michele Bac.h.mann called it Hoot-Smally, is that the same thing?

[poster1122]

It's beside the point of what the statement says.

The point is that signing statements are at their core a naked power grab. If the President thinks a bill is unconstitutional in whole or in part, what business does he have signing it? That's where his veto power comes in.

What signing statements amount to his giving Presidents to pick and choose what provisions he wants to enforce--e­ffectively a backdoor line-item veto.

As the last 8 years should have taught us, Presidents call always find some thin reed to claim this or that is overstepping Congress's authority. Remember the Bush/Cheney theory of the unitary executive?

[RuinedSaint]

"Frank and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Texas) said that one way they could get presidents to stop issuing signing statements casting aside laws would be to refuse to fund their priorities­."

Well, golly gee... Another way to stop it would be to support Sn. Specter's Presidential Signing Statements Act instead of letting it get bogged down in committee *again*. I guess most senators, though, would prefer to have signing statements still be available should they ever become president themselves.

[nellie]

I didn't know Specter had drafted a signing statements bill.

This whole kerfuffle over signing statements is more fallout from the imperial presidency theory. If a president wants a provision in a law, then make sure congress knows about it and includes it in the bill, or in amendments. Signing statements make no constitutional sense. If the president signs a law, it's law. And no president is above the law.

[dave1111]

Unless he makes a signing statement saying he is above the law.

[aide1414]

There is more to this than meets the eye.

The signing statement addresses a parameter that would make it difficult for funds to be used with countries that "sponsor terrorism" or that have human rights abuses. Obama wanted to have IMF and World Bank funds as a carrot to offer Iran and other Arab countries in exchange for concessions, particularly relative to Israeli - Palestine peace negotiations. Powerful lobbies such as AIPAC don't want these negotiations to succeed.

The Obama administration is powerful enough to dissent from the push of the lobbies, but individual representatives in Congress lack that power and so must tow the line. That's why you see almost unanimous, bipartisan support.

[NineLives]

Forget sending $108 Billion dollars to the IMF.

Spend the money in this country with American companies making jobs for Americans.

[PiscesPrincess]

oh sure; and we all go back into our respective rat holes and create another Dark Ages we have to claw our way out of. tck.
this is the 21st Century and we all share the same planet. Its too small for this type of bickering.

[Chopin]

Although AIPAC does not lobby for the interests of the American people, it stretches credulity to claim that it got to the entire House except for 2 representatives. I would attribute the motivating dynamics to some clearcut consensus issue powerful enough to muster that rare degree of near unanimity -- like the distribution of constitutional powers. Think about it.

[Sabreen60]

Well, the tr0//s and re-thugs have something they think they can latch onto.

Ya Betcha. Yup Yup.

[mat3]

rethugs was funny the first 8,000 times.

[dave1111]

Funny AND true, Dontcha know.

[nellie]

I would have LOVED to have heard congress fire back at Bush this way with his endless lawless signing statements. There should be no precedents set by Bush behavior. Although it is ironic to see congress suddenly "get it" re signing statements by treating this president like some kind of upstart, I do agree with the sentiment.

[dave1111]

Agreed.

[naschkatze]

Double that.

[MacDad]

many of W's signing statements related to getting his terror policies in the place (which BO has since validated), as they just displayed Congress could have stopped him if they wanted to by taking similar actions - the question is: why didn't they? if the reps had control the dems could have made a stink (did they?), for the last two years the dems certainly had control so there was nothing stopping them... i think the answer is that, at the end of the day, congress is spineless and preferred to have it both ways : if the policies were succesful (or more importantly, popular) the attempt to stop W would be forgotten, if unpopular (even if successful) then they can blame W for using the signing statement.­..

[nellie]

A little consistenc­y—an­d constituti­onality&md­ash;would be nice.

[Amunaka]

Okay so it's pretty clear ...their not going let Obama get away with what the previous administration got away with for 8 years.....­.where were they the last 8 years...cr­inging in a corner afwaid of the big bad repubs that ran riot on the government the last 8 years.

one would think ....

[nellie]

That man-sized safe in Cheney's office must hold a treasure trove of photographs.

[dave1111]

You may be on to something there, phone records, emails, who knows?

[Amunaka]

We won't even mention the giant shredder and all those trucks out side his office

[helenwheels]

sorry - wrong link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs

Kucinich rocks!

[peaceplez]

Thank you very much for posting this (even if it doesn't relate to signing statements) it's a wonderful clip!!!

[Chopin]

Thanks for excellent link. Kucinich is definitely a much needed alarm bell. But for one alarm bell, there are tens of thousands of gucci-shoed lobbyists spreading billion dollars of walking money.to preserve the trillion dollars of ill-gotten profits from the people. The picture of the sad reality is like one Kucinich talking loudly iinside a large glass dome from which the air has been sucked out and filled with a dense hazy white smoke. Some people inside the domecan see and hear him talking. But few, and not enough people outside the dome can hear what he is saying. The insurance industry, and the corporate lobbyists have made sure of that. Nothing short of a general grassroots level people's revolution is going to upset and change that.

[helenwheels]

A bit OT but look at Kucin!ch kick!ng some health ins. industry a$$:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCNO_y-NnVk

Remember: The r!ghtwingers caII this man a w!mp. HA! He hands this guy his a$$ on a platter.

[Exexecution]

He's no wimp.

[dave1111]

Thanks, the link was actually to a Scott Prop. a. gand.a commercial, but I found the correct clip. Kucin!ch ROCKS!

[flamenfiddle]

Fun to read the stuttering, sputtering Obama o.o.ls.ls as, day by day, the mask is removed from the ever so cool, wink and nod "change" agent we have elected.
From his "MEGA MADOFF" economic skull and bone give away to his "Gitmo - Bullsh.itm­o" we are reminded that it is the same as it ever was in washington. Very very sadening to think what our children will be left with.

[wijg]

I have to say that at least there are liberals out there that will call Obama out when he's wrong. Most liberals don't blindly follow anyone just because they have a D after their name. If you'll notice, there are many liberals upset over a lot of the moves Obama has been making lately... And they are voicing their concern. I would say that's a nice change from what we saw with the republicans and their followers.

[flamenfiddle]

golly, I voted for him and feel roundly betrayed. I feel the pain of the repugs who felt the same way about bush.

[dave1111]

Yes, Obama has disappointed me more than once, but he is still 1000% better than Bush.

[wijg]

You've got that right!

[PATina]

DEFINITELY !!!!!!!

[flamenfiddle]

As someone who voted for Obama I feel roundly betrayed on the big issues. He throws a couple little social bones and then - if i close my eyes - I feel like I'm being bushed again.

[peaceplez]

I agree. But I think when people are truly down they don't fight back. It's when they see a glimmer of hope and it's taken away that there's a rebellion. It's been that way throughout history.

[dlarocca]

good... i didn't like these signing statements when King Bush did them and I don't like them now when Obama does them... they shold be outlawed altogether­... how can the president just say i'm ignoring part of a law that Congress passes? think about it, it's a crazy idea... now if we could only strip Congress from being able to give themselves pay raises when they do a crappy job

[Exexecution]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander

[atlanta1962]

Only 1,291 days till this loser is out of office

[LREKing]

Breathlessly waiting to see which Republican genius hopes to replace him. The bimbo? The NBC page? The adulterer? The religious fanatic? The war monger?

[dlarocca]

no the 3rd party candidate who remains to be seen

[nellie]

Free flying hostility.­.. Ah, the H P comment section...­.

[prscnt1]

Obama was wrong, and he might want to reread the constitution. If you don't agree veto it, don't hide behind skirts of figments.

[atlanta1962]

Why read it just tear it up
remember you voted for change

[CitizenRob]

Bush tore it up. It's no wonder that Obama can't seem to find all the pieces to put back together.

OR... maybe he did the signing statement with the explicit purpose of having it rebuked to set a precedent that it can be revoked by congress.

[dave1111]

Why not attach a signing statement to it?

[mtrav]

This administration is beginning to look more and more like bush III

[k6007]

Nope! clinton III.

[dave1111]

Clinton III would not be all that bad.

[NineLives]

No argument from me.

This VERY liberal voter is disgusted with the so called "progressive" branch of the Democratic Party.

Obama is following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton as a moderate republican, not a "progressive" democrat.

[dave1111]

Bill Clinton was never even close to being a "moderate republican". Moderate republicans do NOT get impeached by a republican controlled Congress.

[Mr Hand]

"The Country Overwhelmingly Rejects Obama "

Obama already failed, you just don't realize it yet :-)

[k6007]

We darn sure didn't miss saint ronnie's failure..