Wasn’t President Obama one of the chief negotiators of the budget for the remainder of FY 2011? He sure was quick to take credit for the deal that keeps the government up and running. So it’s curious that he’d turn around and attach a signing statement to the bill.
The Hill reported:
But Obama took the key step of issuing a signing statement, a declaration of constitutional interpretation by a president of legislation he or she might sign into law. It essentially notified lawmakers that he would not abide by the section of the law defunding the establishment of so-called “czars.”
Obama has employed a good number of these informal policy advisers who aren’t subject to Senate confirmation, drawing the ire of congressional Republicans and prompting them to include in their spending bill a provision barring the use of federal funds for czars.
“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,” Obama said in his signing statement. “Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
What a bunch of bunk. What constitutional responsibilities has he carried out? He ignores the constitution.
Read the whole thing, he also included a statement about Gitmo. Basically, he’s telling Congress to go to hell, just as he’s done throughout his entire presidency.
Hey, remember when Obama was against the use of signing statements? He said he would only use them in cases where Congress sent him bills with unconstitutional provisions. How is cutting off funding for a bunch of czars unconstitutional?
Via memeorandum
Update: Via Hot Air, here’s Dear Leader as a candidate promising not to use signing statements. He also promised to obey the constitution. You didn’t believe him, did you?
Update 2: Kudos to Jake Tapper for including Obama’s prior comments on signing statements in his report.
The regime will use any and all tools, legal or not to accomplish their goals. I don’t want to see or hear of Boehner crying or McConnell ushering a new tone, bipartisanship, or any act of consideration towards progressive vermin.The Republican’s have been given via last election, control of the purse strings and they better damn well start pulling them closed.
Conservatives are infuriated by some of the current milquetoast deals by Republican leadership in both the Senate and House and we expect decisive resistive action not apologetic platitudes, deferred strategies or rhetoric. Excuses are totally unacceptable at this point and would only be mouthed by losers; besides, we can get that from the Democrat Party.
Like or Dislike:
1
[...] Big Deficit SpeechGame Over – Kloppenburg Loses to Prosser (and Truman)(and Palin)Obama Adds Signing Statement to Budget Deal Protecting His CzarsJessie Jackson Jr. gives speech about how iPads, not liberal policies, are killing American [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve got no problem with a signing statement that says “here’s how I’m going to interpret this law” or “here’s how I’m going to direct my subordinates to apply this statute.” Those are, generally, legitimate uses of the signing statement./executive order power of the president to oversee the operations of the executive branch.
The problem comes here with his statement that he plans on ignoring a section of a statute eliminating federal spending for a certain purpose. Obama indicates he will ignore that. Implicit in this is his claim that he has the power to order spending from the federal treasury of funds not appropriated by Congress. That flies in the face of the express constitutional language which prohibits the expenditure of funds not appropriated as well as the language of the law he just signed. And that, my friends, constitutes an impeachable offense — and, I believe, a federal felony for which the Kenyan’s son, the treasury secretary, and any recipient of those funds can be prosecuted.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/314840.php
Like or Dislike:
1