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

[LucieLee]

Finally the Democrats on Congress grew a spine! But, then again they should have done so long ago when George W. Bush had so many signing statements on so many things...to do so against Pres. Obama is really a sort of outrage~If they had done it earlier, maybe we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner!! These Democratic whimps aren't fooling anyone, Pres. Obama was doing what was more or less precedent when it came to the World Bank and the IMF...the Congress has been misguided and a bit schizophrenic if not paranoid about the economy and financial decisions of late, they can't see the forest for the trees. Why don't they just pass a bill saying that the U.S. should get out of the World Bank and not contribute to the IMF....that would solve everything?

[cimbri]

Obama wants big increases for the IMF. It wasn't reported on by msm, but he wanted .7% of US GDP to go to other countries in development aid. Roughly 70 to 100 billion a year. This in addition to the already plentiful aid programs.

[Erdgeist]

If Congress really had a pair, why don't they just simply outlaw signing statements?

[dave1111]

Because Obama could outlaw the outlaw, with another signing statement.

[PATina]

Actually... according to Wikipedia... the Constitution doesn't permit, nor prohibit, signing statements. I guess they are just a Presidential "tradition" that has evolved. I guess Congress could enact legislation banning the use of signing statements... but it would probably be vetoed by the President. I think the best way would be for the Supreme Court to get involved (as it did w/ the line item veto) and issue a ruling on them.

[dave1111]

Do we know if the Constitution has had a signing statement attached? It could have been a secret signing statement.

[CitizenRob]

Actually PATina I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment banning signing statements.

[dillydawg]

Well, that would take real leadership on Congress's part.

[dali partin]

I'm very disappointed to learn about this signing statement nonsense. I didn't like it with Bush and truly believed we were going to see change on that.

[cimbri]

The Dictator is stunned.

[mairs]

Wow, if that wasn't projection from a Republican.

[swan1]

Congress, the day late , dollar short group of thugs.

[faith]

Obama knows better. No line item veto under any name. What is the matter with Obama? He has surrounded himself with the old boy network:;;Geithner, Summers, Emanuel, Panetta. He needs to change course and work toward goals that help America. He can start by bringing our troops home from the middle east and by encouraging congress to withdraw any support funds for Israel.

[petera63]

Obama knows nothing. All these Geithners, Summers, Emanuels, Panettas are his own appointees. Now, he failed as someone who taught Constituonal law. What a loser!

[naschkatze]

I think Emanuel is a real disaster and probably hated in the Congress.

[Karl Jonas]

hallelujah it's about time the congress rejected those signing statements. they're not specified in the constitution and mr. obama should be ASHAMED for using even one! this man taught constitutional law?

i voted for him but he's a big disappointment.

[ohiomark]

He taught Constitutional Law, but it's obvious that he rejects the restraints that it puts on his power.

[RKay Butler]

I don't approve of Obama's actions but where was all this outrage when Bush was issuing HUNDREDS of signing statements?

[digeridoo2]

Uhmmm, every where. The signing statements were one of the many complaints against Bush - that he would circumvent certain aspects of Bills using executive authority and justify it because of his signing statement.

[mairs]

Where were the objections in Congress? I don't recall any "overwhelming rejection" of Bush's signing statements there.

[judiNJ]

Yes, it sure is interesting that congress suddenly gets a spine when it is President Obama (or for that matter, President Clinton) and loses its spine when it is President Bush.

[pragmaticdallasite]

That is so true........ but I still agree Congress is doing the right thing.

[dave1111]

Funny how that always seems to happen, doesn't it?

[FeO2E]

because the bush's congress did it knowing that he would use signing statements to nullify any provisions that they didn't want in the bill but were using to make the bill look better ... like the torture thing ... they wheeled and dealed and wrote a law outlawing torture but allowed him to disregard the provision ...

[rabrophy]

Singing statements are an end run around the Constitution. If a President dose not like a law he can Veto it, if it becomes law he is obligated to enforce it.

We must move away from the rampant illegality of the Bush/Cheney years. Obama is losing support by refusing to prosecute the Bush/Cheney thugs and in some ways emulating them.

[tnkeating]

In some ways emulating Al Capone, and if there was any illegality of Bush and Cheney, there would have been some indictment by now I think... They can't even blame Bush for the economy anymore. Obama is losing support, but not because Bush, it because his policies and his arrogance.

[Chubbster]

Yes, I think arrogance is the word. He's a "Celebrity" in a land of actor worshippers.

[JustinKase]

I wish the writers would check the definition of the word"rebuke" and then use it only in its correct context. Thanks.

[rinpochet]

Amazing isn't it? When the Republicans are in the majority they get what they want and when they are in the minority they still get what they want. I agree with this override of that signing statement but interesting that the Democrats were too cowardly to fight against Bush's many, MANY signing statements overriding the intent of Congress.

[Surreal2me]

Well this was unanimous and the Bush Signing statements - it was just the Dems against it. You do the math and see which party is consistent.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Examples of their opposition?

[WeMustSpeakOut]

True enough but if a Dem president is what it takes for Congress to wake up and do their job - then so be it. We have to put an end to the imperial presidency that Bu$h so righteously and lawlessly cut out for himself. Obama has made no moves to reel in those imperialist powers. I have become increasingly uncomfortable with a number of Obama's actions such as the recent claim of the presidential right to post-acquittal indefinite detention.

We know full well the Republiklans are stark raving mad, but the issues we are faced with are so huge that they extend far beyond partisanship. It's about our future and the furture of this country, should there be one.

[Moshe]

Since the election, Obama has been moving right in an effort to get the support of the right.

What he will soon learn, the hard way it appears, is that his move to the right will only alienate the left and even diminish the support from the middle, when he appears to be a hypocrite and a sell-out in abandoning even his own prior stated principles (all of which are achieved on video of course).

If someone is giving Obama this advice (move to the right), he needs to find a new advisor. If this is his own plan, he should rethink it.

Obama was elected to bring change, not to passify the far right and pander to supporters of the status quo.

And if he doesn't deliver real change, he will soon find that he has no support on the left, middle, or right. That will make it a pretty long 4 years for eveyone, and we cannot afford to have another failed presidency after 8 dissastrous years of Bush/Cheney.

So please do what you said you would do President Obama. We need real change, real openness in government, not more defense of executive power and the status quo.

[cimbri]

Wrong. Authoritarianism exists on the left and right, but of course, mostly on the left.

[NetworkGuy]

Mwahahahahahahahahahaha.... liberals ... Authoritarianism.. hahahahahahaha

[PATina]

Beautifully written.

[Moshe]

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

Shalom friend.

[Donnat]

"Senior Democrats and Republicans railed against the notion that the president could ignore a law they had passed and he had signed"

Why didn't they Rail when Bush was ignoring the law?

[drkazmd65]

'Cause,... Bushie was above the law?

[xmw]

Yes! He was "THE DECIDER"

[scooperss]

It's about time. It does NO good for Congress to write laws if the president can change them at will.

[scooperss]

Meant to say bills of course.

[LREKing]

No signing statements. Period.

[stylenease]

Exactly. Enough of trying to circumvent the Congress and acting like you are above the people who gave you the job with these signing statements -- any signing statement. Start doing what you promised, Mr. Obama, or face almost certain defeat in 2012.