Dictatorships, whether single or by committee are a no go for a Democrat

[Peacetrain]

I am seeing more and more calls for the President to act alone with either signing statements or decrees to pass laws.

That will not work. Benign as an initial procedure may be and even with a President who I happen to respect and admire.. Decrees on high, are a threat to the very thread of our democracy.

Because a pattern will be established, (and we are trying to break the one the Bush aristocracy tried to put in place) that will have us all losing the very freedoms we have now, to lobby for change.

[Clio the Leo]

1. Then he really WOULD be "Bush light" NT

[Peacetrain]

2. Yes he would... what Bush did is a shadow we will have to fight against for years

[noamnety]

3. Obama has been using signing statements all along.

Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: August 8, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html?_r=2&hpw

What do you mean when you say that's a no go for a democrat? Is he a threat to our democracy because he's been doing this? Are you saying it makes him like a dictator?

[Peacetrain]

4. Congress writes laws, the Executive branch enforces law the congress has written

and the Judaical branch interprets the laws in cases of disputes.

Signing statements, even if Obama does them.. can be disastrous if this becomes how the government works.

We will then have a royal executive branch.

The President has been letting the congress write laws in the case HCR, much to the chagrin of people. They want him to use signing statements.

If President Obama starts using signing statements (you might want to look up the history of signing statements and how many Presidents have used them) like Bush did.. then having a benign dictator might seem glorious for our side for the moment.. till the next President comes along and shuts down all your rights, because of actions from previous Presidents.

[noamnety]

5. What do you mean IF he starts using them like Bush did?

from the above link:

(snip) "They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations.

The administration protested that it planned to carry out the provisions anyway and that its statement merely expressed a general principle. But Congress was not mollified. On July 9, in a bipartisan rebuke, the House of Representatives voted 429 to 2 to ban officials from using federal money to disobey the restrictions. And in their July 21 letter, Mr. Frank and Mr. Obey — the chairmen of the Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee — asked Mr. Obama to stop issuing such signing statements, warning that Congress might not approve more money for the banking organizations unless he agreed.

In March, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent Mr. Obama a letter criticizing a signing statement that challenged a statute protecting government whistle-blowers who tell lawmakers privileged or “otherwise confidential” information. He accused Mr. Obama of chilling potential whistle-blowers, undermining the intent of Congress in a way that violated his campaign promises. The White House said it intended only to reaffirm similar reservations made by previous presidents.

(snip)

"Other laws Mr. Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and a restriction on putting troops under United Nations command."

[Peacetrain]

6. What part of no signing statements are healthy even if Obama does them do you not get?

[noamnety]

9. I'm just clarifying what you are saying.

If you're saying that his use of them is a threat to democracy, that's fine. I have no complaint about that statement.

If you are implying that he's not been doing this all along, and the health insurance reform critics are asking that he STARTS now, then I disagree with the underlying premise of that statement.

[mkultra]

11. Bush went much further in his use of signing statements then ever before

much farther than their intended use of clarification and amplification. He used them to actually state that he would go against legislation and to set new policy. Where have you been for the last decade?

[noamnety]

12. I was not defending bush's use of signing statements.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

FYI: I'm not one of the ones whose been calling for Obama to use a signing statement. Maybe people made a wrong assumption about that.

[Peacetrain]

8. What part of using signing statements as some have suggested to

counteract the congress is bad precedent do you not get?

[treestar]

7. Signing statements are OK in themselves - Bush abused them

Signing statements indicate how the government will interpret some of the law - like regulations, they are about how it will be carried out and cannot exceed the scope of the law. If they do, someone can challenge that in the courts.

But you are right, some DU posts are as if Obama should abuse them as Bush did.

[Peacetrain]

10. I know the signing statement has been used by many Presidents.. but what Bush did

was totally circumvent the congress.. This royal Presidency that some seem to be looking for.. is totally against Democratic principles..