Saturday, April 16

Another Obama reversal, part 843,959

"Signing statements" are statements presidents sometimes add when they sign a bill into law, and are often used to identify specific sections of a bill that the president believes are unconstitutional and thus does not intend to enforce. Such qualifiers have reportedly been used as long ago as Andrew Jackson--though if all you read is the New York Times you'd think GW Bush was the first to do so.

Obama campaigned on being the anti-Bush: According to Obie everything Bush did was eeeevil, and Obie swore not to do any of those things. Thus when Obozo was a first-term senator from Illinois--the only national experience he ever had before being elected present-ent--he strongly objected to Bush's use of signing statements.

“While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability,” Obama told the Globe. And he *promised* he would never use signing statements "to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”

Fast-forward to a couple of days ago: The GOP majority in the House had passed an emergency bill to avoid a government shutdown--considered a "must pass" bill. One provision of this bill barred any federal funds from being used to pay for Obama's "czars"--advisors widely thought to have more power than the actual cabinet secretaries, but who don't have to be confirmed by the senate (because the positions weren't envisioned by the Founders).

When Obama signed the bill--as he had to to avoid a shutdown--he added a signing statement saying
Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.

This is word-twisting at its most egregious: Congress isn't objecting to the preznit "obtaining the views of the appropriate senior advisers," as Obozo well knows. What the bill says is that Obozo can't use taxpayer funds to pay the salaries of his unconfirmd czars unless he's willing to submit to the constitutional requirement--one never heretofore questioned--that they appear before the senate, and then win a vote to be confirmed by that body.

Obozo's signing statement clearly, unequivocally and obviously contradicts his position just four years ago. But of course, the Ministry of Truth can't admit that, so they have to claim that the two positions are actually consistent.

Here's how it works: You thought that because Obie spent so much time criticizing Bush for using signing statements, that Obie promised he wouldn't use signing statements.

Hahahaha!! God, you're so gullible! He didn't say that at all! Apparently the loophole language is that Obie promised not to use signing statements "to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”

Did you catch the difference? Signing statements are perfectly fine. Unless you're George Bush, in which case they're unconstitutional and a threat to your kids.

But of course, the congressional mandate re Obie's czars seems quite clear. So it seems t' me that if any of his czars gets a check after the effective date of the new bill, that's grounds for impeachment.

Of course with a Dem-controlled senate we'd be in for "Clinton-II"--impeachment but senate Dems don't vote to remove him from office.

Might actually be worth it to hear the Kenyan bastard say why he can defy duly passed laws of the land. Sorta like Slick Willy getting away with a clear case of perjury on the grounds that "is" doesn't really mean "is."

Yeah, I'm really lookin' forward to this new video.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home