« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Obama Memo Limits Use Of Signing Statements
President Obama has issued a new memo that seeks to restrict his administration's use of presidential signing statements, one of the key techniques that President Bush used to get around the law.
Among other things, the memo directs executive branch officials to tell Congress ahead of time if there are constitutional concerns about pending legislation, thereby reducing the number of occasions when a signing statement will be needed.
It also declares that the president will act with "caution and restraint" in determining whether an act of Congress is unconstitutional.
And it pledges that the president's signing statements will identify "constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection."
You can see the full memo here ...
Josh
Zachary
If Obama thinks part of a bill is unconstitutional, then he should veto the whole bill.
That slimy memo tries to say: isn't it great to avoid vetoing a big "omnibus" bill because of one part of it?
No. Congress can vote on the bill again after a veto.
A president should NOT sign bills he considers unconstitutional, and then write signing statements, as Bush did and Obama plans to do.
March 9, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, this is troubling, very troubling. The president can't do this. He has to veto, not do a signing statement. WTF. Obama was a con law professor. This is very, very troubling.
March 10, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree,
The executive has the power of veto, but once a bill is signed it is the law and must be followed. One of Bush's many damaging assaults on the law was the idea that a bill was merely a suggestion that could be ignored if the executive didn't like it. This attitude didn't start with Bush but he certainly expanded it. If Obama continues the precedent then I hope the Republicans can reinvent themselves, get their act together and give the democrats a bloody nose in 2010.
March 10, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would presumably and/or certainly appear to be expected, correct and seemingly of logical sense and of sound Principle and Ethics that our US Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our US Government would and should not present and/or sign a Bill and/or allow into Law that appears unconstitutional and as I presume a reasonable person would concur.
March 9, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. Maybe this is my ignorance. Since when does the president determine that bills or parts of bills are unconstitutional - but still sign them? If an Executive finding of "unconstitutional" isn't enough to draw a veto then what is?
March 9, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of pure nonsense is this?
There is no provision in the law for "signing statements" of any kind. The President has no such power. He can say whatever he wants but these statements have no legal effect at all. None. Why does Obama go along as though this might in any way be appropriate or legal? He should declare all signing statements made by President Bush as having no legal effect whatsoever.
March 9, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do me a favor. Report this stuff as only you can, TPM, but don't put Bush's face on the page. I mean, am I the only one that still gets acid reflux every time I see his chimpy, grinning mug?
Now, if you had a shot of his face as he's passing a kidney stone, maybe...
March 9, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a layman response to the Presidential memorandum I very briefly read;
Where was//is and since the expressed (Abraham Linclon//False Claims Act etcetra) Constitutional public and innate
Presidential??!! and seemingly
Congressional??!!
concern and as seemingly expressed in conjuction with this Memorandum and when at the last minute the Platts//Van Hollen 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ENHANCEMENT RESTORATION ACT' was somehow??!! removed!!!! from the recent so-called Stimilus Bill and seemingly from these exact same Presidential and Congressional Leaders!!!!
March 10, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink