House overwhelmingly rejects signing statement

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: The Hill

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.

They would "interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions," Obama said in the signing statement.


Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-overwhelming-rebukes-obama-signing-statement-2009-07-09.html

[ThirdWorldJohn]

1. They wouldn't do that to Bush. The fucking cowards. n/t

[zbdent]

5. It wouldn't have come up for a vote ...

[pasto76]

30. no, this is a good point!

signing statements are illegal!

[merh]

49. you may want to do some reading

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

[ThirdWorldJohn]

52. 78% of Bush's signing statements were unconstitutional. There was noting done by the scholars like

Specter or Graham or Waxman or Conyers or Obama (until after his inaugural). They did nothing at all. The fucking cowards. Am I wrong? Oh yea they did bitch like whiny little children at times. But hey that is lousy representation. Am I wrong?

[merh]

54. You are not wrong.

Bush abused his office and signing statements. The legislatures allowed it, they allowed him to make them powerless. They were cowards and they share the blame for the state of our union today.

[natrat]

65. the precedent for future admins is the critical element

good to see someone trying to stop obama on this cuz it sucks

[No Elephants]

75. Violations by this administration are not more palatable than violations by future

adminstrations, or than violations by Bushco.

[indepat]

72. Fuckin' cowards indeed and the 'pukes fuckin' hypocrites to the last man or woman!

:P

[No Elephants]

73. You are correct that nothing was done re: Bush. However, I am glad something has finally been

done about signing statements, even if they have been silent until now. Better late than never.

[No Elephants]

74. Signing statements either to create or amend law or to deny that the President is subject to the law

are unconstitutional. Even though signing statements have a long history, they were never used for either of those purposes before Bush and should never be used for either of those purposes again. Not by a Republican, not by a Democrat, not by any POTUS.

[merh]

93. If you read what I linked you would discover that not all signing

statements are unconstitutional. You see, it is SCOTUS that has the power to declare them unconstitutional and in limited circumstances, they have found them to be constitutional.

[No Elephants]

101. If you read what I posted, you would discover that I never claimed all signing

statements are unconstitutional. Both in the post to which you are responding and elsewhere on the thread, I posted about specific types of signing statements that are unconstitutional. (I believe that Bush was the first President to use the unconstitutional type, but another poster said Clinton used the unconstituional type as well, so I asked for an example.)

The SCOTUS does have the power to declare laws and signing statements and other things unconstitutional. However, when the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power over federal funds and the President claims that he does not have to obey a law of Congress limiting his spending, the Constitutional violation is pretty obvious.

Alberto Gonzalez was the first government official of whom I am aware who claimed that the President could do anything unless and until the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. I think the pig said something like "It's not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is."

Gonzalez to the contrary, each branch of government has a duty to do its utmost to act constitutionally. Indded, each member of government takes an oath to that effect, even though the Constitution does not require that, except as to the President. And the Constitution specifically imposes upon the President, not only the duty to take the oath, but also the duty to see that laws of the United States (Constitution, laws enacted by Congress and treaties) are executed faithfully. The Constitution does not, however, enable the President to spend money Congress has not authorized.

I am very sorry to see President Obama going down the same path as Bush, both in defiant signing statements and in thinking he can do as he pleases until the SCOTUS opines. Of course, by that time, the money would be spent, so it would be too late as to this particular bill.

[RC]

7. You forget a good share of the Dems are DINO's.

They are no more Democrat than any right of center republican.

[Politicalboi]

19. Don't be silly

Bush was white, and could be trusted to do the right thing. :sarcasm:

[ProgressIn2008]

95. Are you saying that 492 House members are racist and this resolution was racist?

Seriously? Am I missing the where the sarcasm is directed? I must be. I hope I am. But who knows?

[Stevepol]

25. Amen! Now that they've got a sane president and good reason to play along

or at least show a little patience, they've suddenly become lions and want to take issue with everything.

[No Elephants]

76. What is the reason to play along with an unconstitutional signing statement?

About damned time. I wish they had done the same with Bush, to be sure. But I am not sorry someone has finally remembered the Constitution of the United States, even if the Constitutional Law professor is the one who is ignoring it.

[maglatinavi]

60. bush and obama

yess! the frigging congress wouldn't do anything to stand in the way of the shrub... what a shame... we are an embarrassment to the world...

[No Elephants]

77. Slightly less embarrassing now that Congress finally did something about unconstitutional signing

statements. Wish they had done so when Bush was in office, but I am still glad that they did something now. Tired of POTUS's asserting that they are above the law they swear to preserve, defend and faithfully execute.

[Papa Boule]

62. Frankly I didn't know they COULD do it. n/t

[ProSense]

2. Don't you wish they had done this during Bush's term? n/t

[Seedersandleechers]

3. Don't forget the two rules

One for Repukes, and one for Dems. Still though, I do not agree with signing statements no matter who does them.

[KakistocracyHater]

15. Hell yeah

if only....

[Oregone]

4. But it was ok when Bush did it?

WTF? About time they grow some nuts

[choie]

8. no, it wasn't okay when Bush did it

and it's repulsive that Obama is doing it. Once again demonstrating the power corrupts.

[napoleon_in_rags]

53. Yeah, repulsive. Repulsive like a fox!!!

I think I forgot what I had to say, I just wanted to use that subject line. ;)

[Beartracks]

24. Stem cell research is paying off!

First we grow Congress some nuts. Next up will be the spine...

Congressional spine!

[No Elephants]

79. Another one equating testicles with courage.

:spank:

[Beartracks]

110. It's not a link between testicles and courage...

... but between testosterone and aggression.

It's just an expression, a vernacular shorthand for making the point. I admit it's not particularly artful, nor completely accurate. I guess I'll take my lumps. :spank:

[No Elephants]

78. Because testicles are the exclusive source of courage? Agree that Congress should have acted

years ago, though.

[HughMoran]

6. I was wondering about that signing statement

It seemed ludicrous on it's face.

[No Elephants]

107. It;s not his first of this kind, just the first time Congress acted officially, instead of

simply complaining to the media (Republicans only, of course.) In fact, his first signing statement of this kind came two days after his March 2009 announcement that he would discuss things with Congress before the bill got to his desk, rather than resort to Dummya-style signing statements.

[Vidar]

9. I'm liking Congress better these days.

[prostomulgus]

10. It was a Republican ammendment?!? WTF?

Why is a repuke ammendment even coming up for a vote in the House? Any repuke ammendment should be rejected out of hand. It should never get out of committee and, if the committee chair is stupid enough to let that happen, then it should never come up for a vote. Any rules that allow for votes from the minority party need to be changed.

President Obama and Pelosi need to have a little chat. If she won't shut down the repukes more agressively, we're going to need a different speaker.

[appal_jack]

12. R or D, it was a good amendment

An amendment to put pressure on "the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities," is a good idea. I don't care who proposed it. The World Bank has done enormous damage to the global environment and workers' rights through too many of its 'development' projects.

That said, I wish that Congress had acted similarly for every one of B*'s signing statements. But better late than never that Congress finds its collective spine. The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse. If Obama wants our money for the World Bank, Congress SHOULD attach conditions.

-app

[boppers]

17. Another intelligence agency, run by the executive branch?

With the agency policy controlled by congress? Just what we need. :sarcasm:

[JDPriestly]

28. The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy,

but only Congress has the authority to authorize expenditure of money. Congress made a good call on this one. The president, regardless of name, color, religion, gender or sexual preference can set foreign policy, but he can't set fiscal policy. The president can make any deals he wants and say whatever he wants to foreign leaders, but if he dos not comply with congressional restrictions, he will not gave the money to spend on keeping his side of the deal. That is the way the Constitution is set up. That is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. That is the way it should be.

[ihavenobias]

33. Exactly. n/t

[Egnever]

35. Cant argue with that.

I am convinced.

[seabeckind]

56. Hear! Hear!

About dam time. What moron suggested Obama do this signing statement? The World Bank and IMF are not our friends. Sounds like something Bernanke or Geithner would suggest -- or Greenspan.

Too bad it took a repug to bring up the amendment but I'm glad he did. Probably for the wrong reason but hel, I'll take what I can get.

[No Elephants]

80. For those who put Party (or Obama) over the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law,

your post may resonate. For others, it's nothing short of appalling.

Wake up.

[Hydra]

11. Congress told the President "No"?

I thought we were sticking with that "Unitary Executive" crap.

[dbonds]

13. This is a good thing.

I hope they keep this up.

[bertman]

14. Only two dissents. Very impressive. Now if we could just get them to vote against their

biggest donors.

Still, I like it.

[Mojambo]

16. Excellent news. Obama was flat out wrong. Glad Congress stepped up, for once.

[Deep13]

23. +1

[emilyg]

46. +2

[Dutch]

63. +3

[snake in the grass]

31. Dems always step up...

...when the President is a Democrat. It's a different story when he's a Republican. I'm happy they did this, but I wish we'd seen more of this in the past.

[No Elephants]

83. The Democrats did not initiate this. The Republicans did. That's why it finally happened. But,

the Democrats did not vote them down, and they could have. Thank God they chose the Constitution over Party.

[Vidar]

18. K&R

[jgraz]

20. I can't believe I'm saying this...

but I'm starting to think that Congress is really the source of HOPE and CHANGE in this government.

[DCKit]

21. Funny how they get all patriotic, Constitutional and assertive with a (D) in the WH.

Fucking lame losers. Where were they seven years (and more) ago when they could have prevented the worst abuses ever seen in our history? They were "keeping their powder dry". That shit is mummified by now.

[No Elephants]

81. Why is a unconstitutional signing statement by Obama less of an abuse than

an unconstitutional signing statement by Bush?

[DCKit]

99. I didn't say it was, Karnak. n/t

[No Elephants]

102. Read your post again. You did not use those exact words, but you sure conveyed it. No

mindreading was necessary, only the ability to read and think.

[Deep13]

22. Well at least they did it. nt

[rpannier]

26. About time

It's good they picked something positive to challenge him on -- Labor and Environmental standards are often ignored by the world bank.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Good for them!

Obama's bushian signing statement should be rebuked by all.

[cowcommander]

29. Who were the two dissenting votes?

[chill_wind]

55. I'd love to know, too.

Welcome aboard DU :hi:

[mvd]

32. That's fine, but where were they..

when Bush was making signing statements left and right, usually having less basis than Obama's statement did?

[No Elephants]

82. What basis did Obama's statement have? All signing statements saying the POTUS

is not bound by a law duly enacted by Congress have the exact same degree of basis.

Zero.

[mvd]

92. I thought there was at least some validity..

in the way Obama said it intruded on his domain.

[No Elephants]

103. No. The domain of the Executive does not include the power of the purse. I

don't think even Dummya claimed that. But still, if the President feels Congress overstepped, the Constitution tells him exactly what to do about it, namely veto the bill. So, on both counts, his "signing statement" itself was unconstitutional, just as much as Bush's were.

(Bush proferred rationales, too.)

[mvd]

109. To be fair, the purse wasn't part of his rationalization

"They would "interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions," Obama said in the signing statement."

I will agree that he should have just not signed it instead of making a signing statement, though.

[DWilliamsamh]

34. I'm glad they did it....Just funny how they WOULDN'T do it to Bush

The principle doesn't change just because a Dem is in the White House. The President is to sign or veto legislation, and then as executive makes sure the departments under him comply with the law. If the President thinks the law infringes on his executive power he can VETO it.

Fucking spineless Dems though: hold one of there own to the letter of the constitution and run screaming from the room with their panties around their ears if a Republican (even an imbecile like Bush) says BOO!

[No Elephants]

84. Please see Reply # 83.

[styersc]

36. Obama should be ashamed for penning a signing statement.

They were illegal when Clinton did it, illegal when Bush did it and illegal now. Good for the Congress for retaining its Constitutional muscle.

[SeattleGirl]

40. I don't think they are illegal, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_(United_States)

They were certainly abused under Bush, and like others, I wonder where in the hell Congress was when Bush was in office. But, they are not illegal.

[maglatinavi]

61. not illegal

all presidents have done it and it isn't illegal... however, the shrub abused it to the point of being unconstitutional ... what the hell is the matter with the dems in congress ... are they afraid of being courageous???

[No Elephants]

104. Not all signing statements are illegal. Most simply bloviate. No harm, no foul.

However, Dummya (I am fairly certain it was only Dummya) introduced the practice of claiming in a signing statement that he did not need to obey the very law he was signing. That is unconstitutional. It is an attempt to legislate an exception in the bill for the President.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to legislate and only the President has the duty to see that laws are faithfully executed. So, when he purports to legislate via signing statement, the President is violating the separation of powers AND breaking his oath of office and his duty to see that the Constitution and laws of Congress are faithfully executed.

The Constitution gives the President only two options as to a bill he dislikes--veto and, if the veto is overridden, court challenge.

[No Elephants]

85. I don't know of any signing statements by Clinton that were illegal. If you have a specific

example, I'd love a link or whatever data you can provide. If you find an illegal one, I'll stand correced and be grateful for the information. Meanwhile, please see Reply # 74.

[Time for change]

37. Good

It's very disappointing to me that he uses signing statements in that way.

[DUlover2909]

38. Maybe Obama planned it this way.

Maybe he wanted to remove signing statements as an executive power and this was how he would do it. I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'.

[No Elephants]

86. Please tell me you don't really believe that.

Break it down. Congress has NEVER done this before, despite scores of unconstitutional statements by Bush. So, Obama took an unconstitutional action, relying on a Democratic Congress to do to him what it had not done to Bush in eight years. And, if he was wrong? Oh, what the hell, just another unconstitutional signing statement would stand unchallenged. No big deal, right?

Please tell me you don't believe what you posted, even a little. Please.

[DUlover2909]

94. Eh, anythning is possible. Maybe he told them to vote it down, I dunno.

I don't know the real reason why they would all the sudden decide to start challenging signing statements. I'm just stabbing in the dark.

[MindMatter]

39. Obama looks a lot more like Bush every day.

He's barely 5 months on the job and has already give up have of the principles he campaigned on. The other half still separate him from Bush, for now.

[SeattleGirl]

41. Disagree with you on that one.

He's not perfect by any means, but "more like Bush every day"?

Nope.

[MindMatter]

45. Yes "more like Bush"

I'm talking about the trajectory. The conventional wisdom was that Democrats campaign to the center and they try to govern left (although there hasn't been a time in the last 40 years when that happened.

But in Obama's case, he campaigned well to the left of at least where the MSM pegged the country, and immediately took a hard right turn upon taking office. He has backed off of pulling out of Iraq. He is escalating in Afghanistan. He doubled down on Bush's giveaway to Wall St. He has thrown gays under the bus. And now, signing statements.

Not yet as bad as Bush, but unquestionably "more like Bush" every day.

Well, at least we got rid of Cheney. At least Biden still looks like the guy on the campaign trail.

[Inuca]

70. Signing statements were not a Bush innovation

he just used them much more than other presidents.

As to Iraq and Afghanistan, he is doing exactly what he said he will be doing. Drawing down in Iraq and escalating in Afghanistan, that's what he said during the campaign.

"More like Bush" is ridiculous.

[No Elephants]

87. Bush was the first President to use unconstitutional signing statements.

Please see Reply 74. Obama is only the second President in our history to use an unconstitutional signing statement.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact that Obama said he would do what he is doing has nothing to do with whether the conduct is Bush-like or not.

Obama's D of J has taken the exact same position as Bush in every lawsuit that was pending when Obama took over.

Extraordinary rendition continues. So does torture by us (Bagram).

Obama has said he may keep people who have been acquitted in court in prison, which goes beyond anything Bush ever said on that point.

Obama is refusing FOIA requests from the ACLU, just as Bushco did.

Obama has filled a lot of high government offices with corporate insiders.

We've had about 250 DADT discharges, just since Obama took office, even though he has general power under the Constitution and specific power under 10 USC 12305 to suspend DADT discharges.

So, there have been quite a few similarities between Obama and Bush all along; and an unconstitutional signing statement does indeed make Obama yet more like Bush.

Yes, we have now stem cell research and some other chnages, but the poster never said Obama is identical to Bush.

[Zhade]

48. Have you been under a ROCK? Look at his record so far!

Contrary to what you may have heard, blinders are not the hottest fashion these days.

[SeattleGirl]

51. I'm not wearing blinders.

I just don't look at him with completely jaded eyes.

[Zhade]

111. I guess it's true that blinders are useless when your head's under the sand.

NT!

[choie]

66. yes - and his record

his thus far pretty abysmal.

[katandmoon]

42. What if he ignores their amendment?

[maglatinavi]

59. the amendment & obama

yeah, what if??? the shrub did it all the time and the frigging congress members didn't do anything... is Congress trying to treat a democrat potus diferently... this is a real shameful and discriminatory situation ... "Dios nos coja confesaos..."

[No Elephants]

88. Baloney. This is the first amendment of its kind, ever. So, how is it possible that Bush

ignored this kind of amendment all the time?

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Three cheers for Congress

The don't deserve it very often, but they do over this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. This is one instance in which I'm okay with bipartisanship.

The legislative branch needs to retake their power, since the executive branch seems disinclined to give it away.

[grahamhgreen]

47. YAAAAAY! Democracy is not dead after all!!!!! Whoopeeeeee! nt

[defendandprotect]

50. Impressive . . . .!!

[chill_wind]

57. Occasionally the House remembers that thing about co-equal branches

of govt and separation of powers, and I pinch myself... and then I wake up again, sober, to the Harry Reid Senate.

[Phildog]

58. Thank God

It's about time Somebody stood up for the worker living on $2 bucks a day,
thanks to the World Bank and IMF. This actually strengthens Obama's hand
in requiring basic living. He would be forced to "pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities." Which is a good thing.Check your ego, Mr. President; your doing fine.

[bigbrother05]

64. Article 2 Section 2, President's Treaty Powers

From Article 2 of the Constitution:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


The President has the power to negotiate treaties (international agreements) along with Senate "Advice and Consent". Nothing about the House nor any preconditions. Obama is exerting the President's enumerated Constitutional power. He said nothing about executing without Senate approval, just that he would not consent to the preconditions. He said this plainly and publicly.

What Bush did was usually hidden and rarely involved Constitutionally enumerated power. Go ahead draw the equivalency if you care to, but this is not splitting hairs or semantics. The House is overstepping their authority, this is an unconstitutional law they are planning. They can pass a resolution urging the President to consider these things in future dealings, but it is the President and Senate that have the final say and the law is on their side.

[No Elephants]

89. Wrong. JD Priestly laid it out correctly in Reply 28. It is Obama who overstepped, not the House.

The Constitution gives Congress has exclusive power of the purse, period.

And Bush's signing statements were no more visible or hidden than Obama's.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

100. The President was right to issue the signing statement, and Congress was right to make the amendment

Congress doesn't have the authority to order our World Bank representatives to negotiate in a certain way, but they do have the authority to withhold Treasury money if certain statutes in the original bill aren't met. The signing statement was correct and Congress' response was also correct.

I wish they'd flexed their muscle a little bit from 2006 to 2008 though.

[No Elephants]

105. No, the President was not right to issue the signing statement. First, he has no "power of the

purse. Only Congress does. I know of no instance in which another President, even Dummya, claimed he had power of the purse.

Second, a President has no power to legislate an exception for himself in a bill of Congress that does not contain that exception. Like the power of the purse, Congress has exclusive power to legislate, and the Constitution also states what legislating requires. Signing statements can't purport to legislate.

Third, a President has no power to simply defy a law duly enacted by Congress, or claim that it does not apply to him or that he will not obey it. To the contrary, both his Constitutionally required oath of office and Article II of the Constitution require him to uphold duly enacted laws of Congress, not defy them.

If the President does not like a bill, the Constitution tells him exactly what he can lawfully do about it. He can veto it. If Congress overrides the veto, he can go to court or take his chances on defying it and let Congress sue him. He cannot seek legal cover via a signing statement. That is Unconstitutional bs, invented by the same Dummya lawyers who found legal justification for torture.



a signing statement that simply bloviates or even one thtat says, in essence, "I hate this law" = no Constitutional problem. A signing statement like this one = multiple Constitutional problems. So, again, NO, Obama was not[/b right to issue this particular signing statement.

[Ian David]

67. Where were they when BUSH was doing it much worse?

Is it possible that Obama and Pelosi worked together on this, just to set the precedent?

[No Elephants]

91. Why is an unconstitutional signing statement by Obama much better than an

unconstitutioinal signing statement by Bush?

As to your statement about Obama and Pelosi. Republicans initiated this. Clearly, neither Pelosi nor Obama has an idea how to control Republicans in Congress. See also Reply # 86.

[tomp]

68. signing statements are wrong.

don't sign the fucking bill if you think it contains illegal provisions, which is the only reason you could possibly have for saying you will not follow it as written.

obama the great constitutional scholar, my ass.

[No Elephants]

90. Not all signing statements are wrong, only the unconstitutional ones. Please see

reply 74. People need to differentiate enough between the different kinds of signing statments.

I think one President even signed something like "I hate this bill." Not the exact words, but that was his jist. But he never said he was going to ignore it, or that it did not bind him. So, I don't see anything unconstituional about that, even though that one came the closest to the Bush Obama type signing statement. The rest were basically bloviating, not defiance.

[tomp]

97. don't split hairs.

if a president wants to make a comment, who cares. it should be obvious that we're talking about NOT OBEYING THE LAW.

[mvd]

98. I do agree here, despite my above comment

Obama should have not signed the law if he didn't like it.

[No Elephants]

106. If you read this thread, you will see that a number of posters

think that signing statements have been added to bills for a long time and are therefore all ok. And statements along the lines of your own, seeming to assuming that all signing statements are wrong. Many posts, including yours, on both sides of the issue show no recognition that the statements that go back a century or more were markedly different from the kind Dummya initiated and Obama is following.

Others are saying, in essence, that the problem with Bush's signing statements versus the signing statements of his predecessors was only that Bush overused them--as though it were about numbers, rather than about substantive differences in the kinds of signing statements.

So, no, it has not been obvious for posters on this thread. And discussion without distinguishing between the two kinds of statements cannot be had intelligently.

[tomp]

112. is anyone objecting to presidents saying things about the law...

...he is signing, or expressing simple opinions, or hopes, or commenting on the import of the bill as they sign?

I think it is infinitely more likely that no one cares much about THOSE signing statements. today, since bush, the discussion around signing statements is about when the president says he won't honor the terms of the bill.

of course, i admit i wasn't specific, because i didn't think i had to be. really, i can't understand why anyone would be talking about anything else in relation to signing statements.

[maryf]

69. Glad they are looking at the signing statements...

Hope they pay attention when they are out of session...

[summerbreeze]

71. Well done.

[ProgressIn2008]

96. Agreed with poster above: heaven help me, I'm thinking the House is the only source of hope n change

though give it a week.

[No Elephants]

108. Has there ever been a House vote against a Presidential act that is 429-2? Amazing--

and very scary--to me that people can see a figure that startling and historic and still go into knee jerk mode.

If your love of the Constituion does not come before your love of Obama or your love of Party, then there really is no hope for America or the rule of law--and the problem in this case would not be Republicans.