Hey Bully! On Those Signing Statements? He's Not In Office Yet

[Kathianne]

Can't wait to get his hands on the pen:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/...go_pr_wh/obama

Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 31 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."....

[Psychoblues]

The long knives are being sharpened and the safety and security of Americans and their environment, reputation and well being is now being taken seriously by a serious President and his still forming administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God the long nightmare is coming to an end soon and very soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: WaPo

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees are rushing to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy...................................

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

The hours will be long, the work will be difficult but now that adults will be back in charge there will be substantial enjoyment by all that truely love, appreciate and stand by the genuine principles and values of the United States of America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yurt]

as he should. a good leader would do the same thing. obama has good coaching and lots of power players with lots of money and power supporting him and giving him advice. i expect no less from the puppet.

[manu1959]

great....from an inarticulate idiot to an articulate idiot....

[Sitarro]

I wonder what Barry the Chimp's handlers will get him to do first.

[Yurt]

I wonder what Barry the Chimp's handlers will get him to do first.

destroy speech, watch....it will happen, little by little and the code word is "fair"

[Kathianne]

Merged threads.

[stephanie]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

[Kathianne]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

I must admit to having a bit of a giggle when I saw that. I do believe those 'signing statements' were one of Bully's reasons for thinking GW should be impeached.

[bullypulpit]

Can't wait to get his hands on the pen:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/...go_pr_wh/obama

A 6/27/06 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that:

<blockquote>We are at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. One of the most troubling aspects of such claims is the President's unprecedented use of signing statements. Historically these statements have served as public announcements containing comments from the President on the enactment of laws. But this President has taken what was otherwise a press release and transformed it into a proclamation stating which part of the law the President will follow and which parts he will simply ignore.</blockquote>

The results of this hearing were cited in the ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, which I will refer to as the "ABA Task Force" for the rest of the discussion.

The following recommendations were the result of the unanimous agreement of the members of the Task Force, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative...

<blockquote>- Oppose as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers a President's issuance of signing statements to claim authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.</blockquote>

The rest of the recommendations can be read <a href=http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf>HERE</a>

The upshot is that even Bill Clinton ran their signing statements through the Office of Legal Counsel regarding his authority to challenge or reject portions of a bill he found controversial. George W. Bush, on the other hand, ran bills through Dick Cheney's office in search of perceived threats to the "unitary executive", a concept found nowhere in the Constitution.

Much as you may be inclined to believe otherwise, President Bush's use of signing statements goes far beyond that of his predecessors...From simply stating views on a given law or provision therein...To asserting authority to ignore provisions of laws he has signed. Article 7 of the Constitution plainly states:

<blockquote>Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, <b>shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives</b>, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.</blockquote>

He can either sign the laws or veto them and send them back to Congress and nothing else.

Nor does the Constitution provide him the authority to ignore or fail to enforce laws or provisions thereof which he disagrees with as is stated in Article 2, section 3:

<blockquote>He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; <b>he shall take Care that <i>the Laws be faithfully executed</i></b>...</blockquote>

Again, the President cannot choose which laws or provisions thereof he will or will not enforce.

Good night, dear lady.

[bullypulpit]

I'm waiting with baited breath for Bully to answer..

I'm sure.

[Psychoblues]

I wonder if it's catfish bait or bream bait?

I'm sure.

Crickets or worms? Chicken guts or rotten beef?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

BTW, bp, excellent rebuttal to the original question and observation!!!!!!!!!!! Outstanding, IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kathianne]

A 6/27/06 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that:

<blockquote>We are at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. One of the most troubling aspects of such claims is the President's unprecedented use of signing statements. Historically these statements have served as public announcements containing comments from the President on the enactment of laws. But this President has taken what was otherwise a press release and transformed it into a proclamation stating which part of the law the President will follow and which parts he will simply ignore.</blockquote>

The results of this hearing were cited in the ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, which I will refer to as the "ABA Task Force" for the rest of the discussion.

The following recommendations were the result of the unanimous agreement of the members of the Task Force, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative...

<blockquote>- Oppose as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers a President's issuance of signing statements to claim authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.</blockquote>

The rest of the recommendations can be read <a href=http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf>HERE</a>

The upshot is that even Bill Clinton ran their signing statements through the Office of Legal Counsel regarding his authority to challenge or reject portions of a bill he found controversial. George W. Bush, on the other hand, ran bills through Dick Cheney's office in search of perceived threats to the "unitary executive", a concept found nowhere in the Constitution.

Much as you may be inclined to believe otherwise, President Bush's use of signing statements goes far beyond that of his predecessors...From simply stating views on a given law or provision therein...To asserting authority to ignore provisions of laws he has signed. Article 7 of the Constitution plainly states:

<blockquote>Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, <b>shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives</b>, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.</blockquote>

He can either sign the laws or veto them and send them back to Congress and nothing else.

Nor does the Constitution provide him the authority to ignore or fail to enforce laws or provisions thereof which he disagrees with as is stated in Article 2, section 3:

<blockquote>He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; <b>he shall take Care that <i>the Laws be faithfully executed</i></b>...</blockquote>

Again, the President cannot choose which laws or provisions thereof he will or will not enforce.

Good night, dear lady.

Good morning, sir. My point those few years back, my point last evening was that presidents tend to use the powers they have. Whatever restraints they may place on themselves are more than likely a combination of situations and personality.

Indeed as long as legal I'd allow the system to work, those pesky checks & balances. For one reason or another when not in control the tendency of the Democrats is to try to 'ban' certain powers. Sometimes they are saved from themselves, like when they tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate. If you'd had your druthers, you'd have taken this executive option away. My guess is we will see Obama using it quite frequently, as a way to get things he wants accomplished with little or no noise. Indeed it's as close to a line item veto as available.

[retiredman]

again...Kathianne...I don't mean to belabor this point, but signing statements are used to limit the force or scope of laws. I do not know if any othe rpresident used them to the extent that Bush did, but if they did, I would disagree with their excessive use regardless of the political party of the president. Executive orders are a different sort of thing. Obama's plans to use them regardling stem cell research and off shore drilling are perfectly within his rights as president and I would not question their use, or the right of the president to use them, also regardless of party.

[Psychoblues]

"Pesky checks and balances"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? WTF are you talking about, Kat?!?!?!?!??!?!??!!??!?!??!!?

Good morning, sir. My point those few years back, my point last evening was that presidents tend to use the powers they have. Whatever restraints they may place on themselves are more than likely a combination of situations and personality.

Indeed as long as legal I'd allow the system to work, those pesky checks & balances. For one reason or another when not in control the tendency of the Democrats is to try to 'ban' certain powers. Sometimes they are saved from themselves, like when they tried to end the filibuster rule in the Senate. If you'd had your druthers, you'd have taken this executive option away. My guess is we will see Obama using it quite frequently, as a way to get things he wants accomplished with little or no noise. Indeed it's as close to a line item veto as available.

The 'lil jerk abused his powers again and again and the American people, including many Democrats, excused him for it due to "war-time" considerations. No president has ever violated the American trust to the degree that the 'lil one has and I hope no other ever will again. Just think of the damage to our national reputation and the distrust those idiotic statements have generated amongst true Americans?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!? The concept is astounding in the negative sense at best but more like power mongering in the least.

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Psychoblues