Another day of Obama flip-flopping against a position he had as a Senator. As we know, anything Obama said as a Senator has an expiration date. Amazing how quickly he flip-flops on almost all his stances. Basically Obama’s signing statement is telling Americans he won’t follow the laws enacted by Congress.
Obama’s signing statement was issued to keep his beloved czars and his lust to bring terrorist from Gitmo to U.S. soil. What should be pointed out is that Obama negotiated the bill with Republicans, agreed to it and then waited a few days to issue his signing statement telling Congress he won’t obey the law.
That is straight dishonesty.
Jake Tapper reports, via ABCNews:
In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.
Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.
One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.
“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. 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 president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.
During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.”
Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
He said he wouldn’t do a lot of things as Senator that he is now doing as President.
The president said that no one “doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.”
That was then, before he became President. Bush issuing signing statements=BAD. Obama issuing signing statements=GOOD. We’ve seen this before.
Obama also issued a signing statement against the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the U.S. What is amazing is that this was a law put into place by Democrats when they controlled by the House and Senate but Obama waited to issue a signing statement while Republicans control the House. Political gamesmanship.
Read Full Post »