We did hear a little about these nasty things called SIGNING STATEMENTS back in 2008 when Democrats attacked Bush senselessly over his use of signing statements -
According to Wikipedia, which I am not a fan of - A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law.
Wikipedia continues with an explanation of the controversy surrounding SIGNING STATEMENTS during "the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes."
The esteemed American Bar Association stated in 2006, that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".
Mr. Obama made much of this, as did liberals nearly everyday during the last two years of the Bush administration when Democrats took control of Congress.
During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama informed the American people that he had taught Constitutional law for ten years and he knew the law and Signing Statements were NOT Constitutional.
In Obama's own words - "That's not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress."
In 2011, the White House Press Secretary told the American people that President Obama was never against signing statements, just when President Bush "abused" them. The understanding of abuse would be subjective - when Obama said it was abuse or when Liberals said it was abuse, BUT what Obama said was not about abuse of power so much as the fact it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and as such was an abuse of power.
The Press Secrertary continued - Obama's "concern was with what he saw as an abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration. So that the positions he took in signing statements on the budget bill entirely consistent with that position, you need to retain the right to, as president, to be able to issue those signing statements, but obviously they should not be abused."
Just another of the MANY ways Obama redefines the meaning of the word 'is' yet when Bush made it clear he was for or against something, he was attacked both on the merit of the cause and the method of delivery. Sometimes more on the method of delivery.
Makes perfect sense to me.
obama
According to Wikipedia, which I am not a fan of - A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law.
Wikipedia continues with an explanation of the controversy surrounding SIGNING STATEMENTS during "the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes."
The esteemed American Bar Association stated in 2006, that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".
Mr. Obama made much of this, as did liberals nearly everyday during the last two years of the Bush administration when Democrats took control of Congress.
During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama informed the American people that he had taught Constitutional law for ten years and he knew the law and Signing Statements were NOT Constitutional.
In Obama's own words - "That's not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress."
In 2011, the White House Press Secretary told the American people that President Obama was never against signing statements, just when President Bush "abused" them. The understanding of abuse would be subjective - when Obama said it was abuse or when Liberals said it was abuse, BUT what Obama said was not about abuse of power so much as the fact it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and as such was an abuse of power.
The Press Secrertary continued - Obama's "concern was with what he saw as an abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration. So that the positions he took in signing statements on the budget bill entirely consistent with that position, you need to retain the right to, as president, to be able to issue those signing statements, but obviously they should not be abused."
Just another of the MANY ways Obama redefines the meaning of the word 'is' yet when Bush made it clear he was for or against something, he was attacked both on the merit of the cause and the method of delivery. Sometimes more on the method of delivery.
Makes perfect sense to me.
obama
Posts
