Well, You Wanted Bipartisanship: House Awakens, Votes 429-2 For Oval Office Accountability

Despite a regular tendency to vote for third-party leftist candidates for president, I happily voted for Barack Obama in 2008. The defining issue for me was the badly degraded legal milieu of the Oval Office. In the wake of the Bush administration's repeated distortions of the powers of the Executive branch, it's true that nearly any constitutional scholar of Obama's academic background would have gotten my vote.

He could have been a third as eloquent. He could have been in poor physical shape. His campaign slogan could have been "Maybe We Can." None of that mattered to me. After Bush/Cheney's record-breaking abuse of signing statements, grotesque executive orders, pre-emptive military bloodthirst and boundless anti-intellectualism, it was Obama's academic and constitutional bona fides that had my vote.

Call it a bias: I like having scholars around. As a rule, scholars tend to bore MBAs, repel religious fundamentalists and challenge authoritarians, each of whom had appallingly enormous, regrettable influence in the Bush White House.

Of course, presidential politics are not calculated in quite the same way one puts together a guest list for a barbecue. Outcomes can be surprising and not a little disappointing. While to my mind the Obama administration has certainly improved the legal tone of the White House, the sad fact is putting a good notary public in Alberto Gonzales' seat would have accomplished that much.

The question is: Where can we find a Constitutional law professor's worth of difference between GWB and BHO?

Of course there are substantive improvements. On the talent front, Team Obama is made up of far fewer graduates of Pat Robertson's law school. The Supreme Court appointment du jour does not come to us out of the Texas Lottery Commission. What's more, many Bush signing statements have been effectively nullified, and somewhat fewer signing statements than Bush used have been used by Obama thus far.

But troubling legal moves on Obama's part to provide cover to financial giants make it harder and harder to locate the scholar among all of the MBAs.

Consider the influence of business interests in government. If one assumed that these peaked under Bush, they would be off by many, many billion dollars. On a public dollar-grab basis, the financial industry and Goldman Sachs in particular have demonstrated far more overt clout on Pennsylvania Avenue in a few months than even Haliburton could in eight years and two wars. Given that Haliburton's ex-CEO was receiving his paychecks while seated in the VP's chair, that is no mean feat.

The problem, put plainly, is a corporate centrist president and his team's distaste for accountability when it comes to the very industry that punctured the economy. The problem is not imaginary, or partisan. And the problem is so evident that even Congress arose today from its traditional slumber and unambiguously rebuked it.

When I wrote last month that the president's legal idealism as expressed on the campaign trail did not jibe with his June 24th use of a signing statement specifically to avoid accountability to Congress concerning a $100 billion credit line to yet another enormous financial institution -- the International Monetary Fund, I expected and got lots of noise. There were brickbats from the Obama faithful (whose distaste for Executive overstep could certainly be put on hold in this instance). There were cheers from the right wing (whose customary love for corporate welfare could certainly be put on hold in the rush to decry Obama.) This is what outsiders (or, as we are called today, "leftists") can expect.

So it was with some surprise and delight that I read that Congress today voted 429-2 to amend the law in question -- effectively circumventing Obama's evasion of it.

Why now? Why did the House allow hundreds of dubious, abusive Bush signing statements in eight years without such an amendment, but can find its courage and love of accountability today?

Maybe the House wonders where the legal scholar on Pennsylvania Avenue is, too.

Follow Rob Warmowski on Twitter: www.twitter.com/warmowski

Comments

[mredder4]

If signing statements are so bad, and the side against signing statements enjoys so much "bipartisan" support, why has no one introduced a bill to outlaw or otherwise eliminate the practice?

[burndtdan]

It was incredibly refreshing to see Congress remembering that it has institutional prerogatives and interests that are not partisan. I didn't even think Obama was wildly off base with his signing statement, but I'm glad to see Congress reassert itself as a coequal branch.

[JavaSavant]

Yes, while it is nice to see Congress stand up for something for once, I just don't see how this is the place to do it. The President's job is international relations, and the Congress' is domestic. I just don't see how them ordering the President to treat an international organization a certain way is any different than the President ordering Congress to pass a particular law. They can't do that, and he said so.

[rickreuben]

Where in the Constitution is the role of the President defined as 'managing international relations', and where in the Constitution is Congress instructed to ignore yet another transfer of wealth to yet another faction of the international banking cartel, the IMF??

Congress handles appropriations. A payment to the IMF is an appropriation. If Congress seriously wants to take back the responsibilities it has been shirking, Congress should move to audit the IMF immediately after passing and enforcing the bill to audit the private Federal Reserve, HR1207.

[zanzig]

I agree wholeheartedly with the general tenor of your article, as it is the duty of the people to hold all elected officials accountable. However, just one nitpicking point: In the comparison of the Goldman Sachs control over the current administration and the Haliburton control over the previous administration, you really should have highlighted one word - OVERT. As in,

On a public dollar-grab basis, the financial industry and Goldman Sachs in particular have demonstrated far more overt clout on Pennsylvania Avenue in a few months than even Haliburton could in eight years and two wars.

We may never hear the true story of exactly what Haliburton controlled in 6 years.

[fedupinfla]

While I support Obama and feel he was the best choice for the Presidency, I am not so enamored that I can't admit when he's done something contrary to what he promised, as in this case...

I can also admit that while I don't like *everything* he's done so far, I like MOST of it. And after 8yrs under Bush/Cheney, I can live with that....

[TheIndependenceParty]

Absolutely! The America I came to age in was not a place where my vote for a president bought my loyal silence for four years! If so, then it is time for me to go.

[jmpurser]

Excellent article. I too was more than disappointed in President Obama's signing statement move. Just another in a series of bitter disappointments.

I'd like to hear more about these left leaning 3rd party candidates you vote for. It seems I need a new party.

[Chopin]

Until Congress can get public campaign financing through, there's no realistic hope of Congress freeing itself from the tight clutches of the tens of thousands of professional lobbyists and their money control over the electoral propcess.

[CalexenderJ]

"The problem, put plainly, is a corporate centrist president and his team's distaste for accountability when it comes to the very industry that punctured the economy. "

this is perhaps one of the most accurate assessments of the Obama administration that I've read any where. All the wingnuts who decry Obama as a left wing socialists are crazy. If any the problems arising in the Obama adminstration come from the fact that he's been too (small c) conservative. Obama needs to pursue accountability and punish law breakers be they from the Bush administration or from Goldman Sachs.

[rickreuben]

Yes, somehow, America's CEO's and Chief Executives mistakenly supported the 'socialist' candidate by a 2 to 1 ratio... :)

usa today, 10-28-08: ":Among Obama's contributors, 5,845 list "CEO" or "chief executive" in their title, compared with 2,597 of McCain's donors, according to election records compiled by CQ MoneyLine. In the 2003-04 cycle, 3,567 of Bush's donors were listed that way, compared with 1,686 for Kerry."

Imagine that.

Warmowski: "the very industry that punctured the economy."

It was well known that the financial industry punctured the economy ( drained it like vampires, actually ) well before Election Day, 2008, and it was also well known that Obama was favored by the Wall Street vampires before Election Day, too.

New York Times, September 2008: "Mr. Obama has led the way in contributions from individuals associated with the securities and investment industry, receiving $9.9 million, followed by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at $7.4 million and Mr. McCain at $6.9 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

A vote for Obama in 2008 will permanently go into the books as A Vote For The Candidate Known To Be The Favorite Of The Industry Puncturing The Economy.

So...

You can give whatever reasons you want for voting for Obama -but you can't say you expected to get somebody tough on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in return.

Because all the data that predicted otherwise was available well before November, 2008.

[criquet]

The reason is so obvious that this writer should have come right out and spelt it out.

[Susanfrom29]

His strong background in Constitutional law, as well as his writings on law, were what put me in his column early on. As you said, even a notary public in Alberto Gonzales' would have improved the quality. That said, I do wish he was displaying more of the characteristics that led me to vote for him.

On the other hand, no politician today is really all that different from any other politician throughout history where power is concerned. And half a loaf is better than none, and a bunch of other cliches.

At most, we can hope that since he does, in fact, know the constitution, he knows when he is violating it, which is a step in the right direction.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"His strong background in Constitutional law, as well as his writings on law, were what put me in his column early on."

If Obama's "writings on law" impressed you, you must have read some of them. Since you also mentioned "Constitutional law" in the same sentence, there is an implicitly suggestion that he actually wrote something about Constitutional law and was not merely an editor who edited the writings of others. Of course, if he was actually a law professor and not someone who incidentally lectured on Constitutional law while holding a political office and working elsewhere, he may have written one or more law reviews.

Perhaps he did. Can we read his writings as well? Can we do so to gain an understand his Constitutional law concepts?

If he had such writings, where can they be found? (Of course, his Dreams From My Father is not a law book and does not count towards any claim that he has written law books or legal articles.)

The biographies that appear on the web, including Wikipedia, seem to not have any reference to Obama's legal writings.

In addition, the legal directory which commonly identifies attorneys and their legal publications, Martindale-Hubbell, likewise does not have any reference to Obama and his legal writings.

Can you please share your information with us? Thank you in advance.

[rickreuben]

Shouldn't a 'constitutional scholar' know that the Founding Fathers established a republic and not a democracy? The difference is substantial.

"Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787."

Senator Barack Obama, from his
A More Perfect Union speech in Philadelphia, March, 2008

( Also, the majority of the Convention delegates did not 'come from across the ocean': 47 of the 55 delegates were born on what would become US soil. )

And why did 'constitutional scholar' Obama think that the President has a line item veto ( other than it made a good campaign talking point )?

" But let’s go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.

But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we’re going to get the middle class back on track."

Senator Obama, campaign debate: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

[WIpatriot]

Definition of democracy:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

[Osusuki]

I'm sorry. If you look up both words in the dictionary, the difference between the two of them is not really worth arguing about. I keep hearing this "It's a Republic" meme over and over again, and it just doesn't hold water.

[Chopin]

I wonder how your excellent article could have eluded general attention and comments from Huffpost? I suspect it's because it didn't have Obama's picture with the article's headline. Maybe it didn't have provocative wording of the headline. But it's an interesting lesson in effective journalism. I hope more people would read and comment on your article.

[Garybot]

The really sad thing is that no one really thought he'd make a good president, because it seems no one actually knew who he was.
But they did know he was good looking, could read reasonably well, memorize platitudes and had a nice family.

Every time we begged people to pay attention to his REAL past, and the glimpses we got of the REAL person when he'd slip up and say things like "spread the wealth", no one was interested in paying attention.

So we all pay....

[dsws]

He has seemed a very savvy politician, and certainly he's smart enough to know that the signing statements on H.R. 1105 and H.R. 2346 are way out of line. I can only hope that he lost this vote so dramatically because he wasn't really committed to winning it.

[ramblingjohnny]

Who are the two who voted against!