President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill

[cynatnite]

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.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/president-obama-issues-signing-statement-indicating-he-wont-abide-by-provision-in-budget-bill.html

:rofl:

[Newsjock]

1. I know, I know ...

It wasn't right when the Chimp did it, and it's not really right when Obama does it ... but day-uhm, it sure makes me feel good to know that John Boner's blood pressure just went up another 15 points.

[cynatnite]

2. It certainly makes my day knowing that some teabagger's head is going to explode because of this. n/

[tanyev]

3. Oh, dear. I do hope there are whaaambulances standing by.

The GOP temper tantrum should be erupting in 3...2...1




:rofl:

[ProfessionalLeftist]

4. Excellent!

Good move.

[napi21]

5. Good for you Barack! They have no right to infringe on your

choice of advisors.

[razorman]

7. No, they don't. They can simply make him pay the advisors from his own pocket.

[originalpckelly]

8. They make the budget, he signed it into law...

he has to follow the law.

He's no better than Bush in doing this. It really shows how pervasive this is becoming, and there is really no excuse with him as he was a constitutional law professor.

[napi21]

11. What about the fact that this was a "rider"? What are we dealing with here?

It sounds like a damn insurance policy!

[originalpckelly]

6. Um, no, the President does not make the budget.

If he signed it into law, then he has to abide by it. If he doesn't like it, then he can veto it.

Just where in the US Constitution does it talk about signing statements acting like a line-item veto? Honestly, there is no constitution anymore, they're just making shit up as they go along.

[toddwv]

9. Thin line there.

He has the executive power to appoint people to positions that don't determine policy.

The House, however, can cut off funding for a particular office.

[FredStembottom]

15. it was the W junta that started the signing statements thing.

I want such extra-constitutional powers to go away.

But rubbing a few Radical Right noses in it beforehand sure is enjoyable!

[KittyWampus]

17. You obviously didn't read the argument. But then Ideologues simply argue from a box

they never stray from.

[cui bono]

21. You obviously didn't read the part where he signed it into law. But then Apologists simply argue

from a box they never stray from.

[spanone]

10. k&r...

[ellenfl]

12. fyi, signing statements have been around since james madison signed

the first one. dubya's abuse of signing statements was the issue, not that he did them. he signed more during his reign than all the presidents before him combined.

ellen fl

[koffeekup]

13. Youtube of candidate Obama pledging not to use signing statements making the rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8fGI9Ry0vU&feature=player_embedded

[tanyev]

14. You're having a very busy first day.

Welcome.

[Beaverhausen]

19. it's gone already

our mods rock!

[cui bono]

23. It's still there. DU mods don't mod youtube! n/t

[JackRiddler]

16. Ah, but we must follow law strictly if it mandates SWAT raids on pot-selling grandmas.

This is the rare case of a signing statement that might actually be justified constitutionally. The executive has the privilege of choosing advisers.

The way these questions are supposed to be resolved is by veto, however.

Vetos were once routine. Bush didn't use one until 2005, I believe. This has been part of creating a lawless executive that instead picks and chooses which law to follow.

[cui bono]

22. And could have been dealt with in the "negotiations". But then that's not O's strong point.

By far.

[lunatica]

18. Advising the President is a matter of National Security

[Major Hogwash]

20. I want to go to work for this guy!! No doubt about it!!

Going to make me lay off some of my helpers? Nope, ain't a'gonna do it.

Gotta love Obama, man. He is dah man!