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

[ezeflyer]

Did they do this to Bush?

[amdezurik]

oh he// no, the repubes loved it then

[imfedup]

Here is the YouTube clip of Obama promising not to use signing statement as an "end-run." In the same clip, he promises to uphold the Constitution. He really stepped in it here. He should have made it clear that there is a legitimate place for signing statements other than the benign "This legislation is reallly nifty" type. Since he didn't do it then, he needs to explain why he's using them now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc

[Moshe]

Wow. Turns out Lord Acton was right.

[digeridoo2]

I guess he changed his mind - turns out signing statements are constitional. He certainly wouldn't have lied to us during the campaign, told us what we want to hear just to get into office.

[PATina]

Signing statements are not expressly permitted or prohibited in the Constitution. The only options a president has is the sign a bill into law... or veto it.

[imfedup]

Interesting take on this from Cenk, who is an attorney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UzQqvJ4dPk&NR=1

[Paisano]

There's no way they would have done this to GW?????? Actually... They did nothing!!!!!!!

[ClarcKing]

Pres. Obama's statements are menacing. Our "allies" and BRIC nations in the IMF membership are using U.S. funding to create a bogus investment hedge "bond" which will serve the 'dump the dollar" scheme as a world reserve currency. How will this offensive serve the United States and/or the perpetrators for that matter? I am disturbed that political leadership can not discern financial warfare.

[tnkeating]

Good call, you are so right

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Congress has the power of the pursestring; no money shall be issued from the treasury without approval of Congress, and it has the power to say how and why it is spent and to require the executive branch to issue reports on how it is being spent. Nuff said.

[mairs]

Well then, checks and balances are returning to government. About time. A healthy back and forth between the Legislative and Executive branches of government. Isn't that what we wanted?

[kassandrasduplex]

And Obama is hamstringing those checks with signing statements. More non-change we can believe in...

[LREKing]

Did you EVER believe in change?

[mairs]

One signing statement followed by one rejection by the House. Instead of making blanket statements I think it's best to observe how this all will play out over time.

[imfedup]

It isn't healthy when the House inserts random provisions that hamper the President's ability to conduct foreign negotiations within reasonable limits. I don't presume to understand the details of this legislation, but I trust Obama knows the Constitution and I trust that he knows better than most anyone what he's up against in trying to change the relationship of the U.S. with so many in the international community. Actually, Hillary Clinton ought to weigh in on this subject.

[Bitsko]

I agree with the President on this one. The Congress overreached. But hey, like the President says, we live in a representative democracy.

[kassandrasduplex]

Most posters always agree with Obama, despite overwhleming evidence that he is pro-corporate profit and anti-progressive. Congress controls the purse strings. And labor standardsw are one good way to level the playing field. But Obama signed a credit car (do-nothing) bill into law with a GUN PROVISION allowing drunken campers to pack weapons. Why didn't he issue a signing statement onthat one? (Answer: because he is appeasing his constituency, the pro-corporate right wing.)

[nycwerewolf]

I'm with you, Bitsko.

[digeridoo2]

Congress may have over-reached, but the solution is to veto the bill, not dissallow a portion of it through a signing statement.

[kassandrasduplex]

Obama is proving himself anti-democratic and anti-progressive every single day. BTW, how many of you have heard the Obama WH just announced cuts to the Medicare Medicaid program (payments to hospitals) of $155 BILLION? If you all thought the coming health "reform" was going to be helpful and affordable, think again. He is DEFUNDING public healthcare in America.
But the corporate media is barely making a peep out of this news....

[powerlift2201]

Medicare wasn't cut. Hospitals agreed to forgo the $155 billion in payments to help start a national public option. There's a difference.

[navigo]

imagine how that will play out when an uninsured person goes to the ER.
let's see...we gave up the payments, therefore we are not treating you.
have a nice day.

[HerCabinBoy]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Go House!

[TLV]

This means that as Obama is shown he DOES NOT have the right to wield that kind of power just because the elcetion made him president, the GOP ought to be paying close attention to how this is done. If - and only if - they ever have the upper hand again, they may be able to demonstrate what they have learned this time around. That is, if they are actually capable of comprehending that Congress makes the laws - not the president. Their Boosh-King was unclear on that point.

[jsgaetano]

Wouldn't this actaully validate the concept of signing statements? If they need to have a vote to stop the president from following his signing statement, that seems to give it a certain level of legitimacy.

[perk]

'actually capable of comprehending that Congress makes the laws - not the president'

I think the issue here is that someone needs to explain this to King Obama.

[mairs]

Overreaction to Obama after 8 years of Bush simply looks ridiculous.

[jsgaetano]

So you were asleep for eight years huh, Rip Van Winkle?

[OpusIsUnderTheBed]

Whether you support Congress's over-riding amendment (and "outrage") or the President's stance on his signing statement, how many signing statements (many, if not most) by Bush, in the last eight years, resulted in Congressional "outrage" and an amendment?

Where were these pompous, ethically challenged screwballs while our country was being mugged by the previous, evil empire administration?

Answer: Drawing a paycheck, free medical, perks and bennies, and in too many cases, "backdoor benefits".

[truegreen]

Sirdi,

Spare us the conservative conspiracy theories. There's a place for smut peddling---its called the freerepublic and NRO.com

[PAposter]

I'm loving this discussion...you guys are so smart :)

Bunch of political junkies....loves it!

[cbates]

The people should rule by definition. however I think the President needs the freedom to act.

[sparky73]

I agree. Why do we even need a congress? Obama has been right on everything so far and Congress has not. If you need further proof...check out the approval rating of Congress then look at our President. It's clear the only person we need is President Obama. Check and Balance my ass....all Congress cares is about are checks$$$$

[getoffthecross]

Oversimplification is not going to help untangle the knots.

[perk]

I guess we could just have rule-by-opinion-poll. Then we could dispense with all the elected officials and just let the bureaucracy implement the poll results.