Reply #12: Here are the parts of that NYT article that you left out with the intent of [View All]

[FrenchieCat]

Here's what you left on the cutting room floor....

Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally used signing statements to declare that parts of a bill were unconstitutional and need not be enforced or obeyed as written.

...Mr. Obama has not issued a signing statement since last summer, when one claim set off a bipartisan uproar in Congress. And the administration has decided that Mr. Obama will sometimes sign bills containing provisions it deems problematic without issuing a signing statement that challenges those sections.

Peter M. Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, praised the approach as a step toward a return to the “normalcy” of how presidents used signing statements through Reagan’s first term. Mr. Shane has previously criticized the administration over its frequent early use of the device.

...other scholars said the tactic was appropriate if a president cited only mainstream legal theories. Mr. Obama, whose advisers sided with the latter camp, has characterized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse and pledged greater restraint.

Mr. Obama... challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress. The White House sought to reassure lawmakers that it intended to take those negotiating positions anyway and was merely noting its view that Congress cannot control foreign negotiations. Many lawmakers rejected that theory, and the House quickly voted 429 to 2 to bar officials from disobeying the restrictions.

Last year the Obama administration disregarded a statute that forbid State Department officials to attend United Nations meetings led by nations deemed state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has included that restriction in several recent bills.

with the ironic knowledge that kool kids "in search of their truth",
are always looking for negativism about this administration
and scour anything that could link this admin to the last one nefariously,
they like the half ass shit that you seem to offer.

Same Kool Kids who won't actually ever go up to the actual
article to integrate into more truthful context what you deliberately
leave on the cutting room floor,
and they will instead choose to have a conversation disregarding
important elements that even the corporate media chose to include
to provide much needed context.

In this endeavor, you are well suited.
but in terms of your actual agenda, and what it is that you are trying to do,
it is questionable, at best.

As for those who are sucked into what you gift them,
they share in common your utter lack of intellectual honesty,
and therefore cannot consider themselves as arbitrators of any truth,
because if they find half of any story not to their liking,
like you, they leave it on the cutting room floor, or attempt to stomp on
those that would question their dishonest prepackaged rationale.