Obama Rolls Back Unconstitutional George W. Bush Signing Statement Policy

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Mechanisms.
People may want to read our history and what "Perty" some of our first presidents and politicians were members of and what oath members of the Congress, the Judicial branch and the Executive branch take as well as other members of law enforcement etc.
They may also want to read about Republics and Democracy along with our Constitution to educate themselves about what a Republic is and the various forms of democracy and democratic mechansims used in Republics to do things as directed in our Constitution. (How Congress and Presidents come to be.) They may also want to study Republicans of the past verus Neo-cons of the present and note the contradictory differences.
Since all are charged with upholding the Constitution and since by design our government was built around checks and balances to discourage too much power in the hands of any special interest group or have a minority suffer just because it is unlikely to never achieve a majority.
One might also note that while Thomas Jefferson authored much of the Declaration of Independence, declaring "all men creaated equal" he kept slaves. No men are not created perfect, even if they might be created equal, that would appear to include Thomas Jefferson and every human that has ever lived, including all presidents of the United States. People should be aware that unless a president in office is able to usurp total power so that there are no means to chalenge, check and balance that power, all practices deemed legal are there for all Presidents to use, even those of the opposition party to the previous one. An ingenious way to hope to avoid some making or ignoring laws that would or could be used against them, just as they use them against others, in case they forgot to think about and apply the "Golden Rule" as a part of their moral fiber.
What seems amazing is he hypocrisy and the whining that goes on about hypocrisy by hypocrites.

Lars of VT 11:19PM December 23, 2009

Lesa didn't drink at the time, but both were 18, the legal age then. ,

Wolf17 of NH 7:05AM October 23, 2009

Ignoring the very real differences between the general populace of blacks and Whites: For example, the black illegitimacy rate, which is several times that of the White. ,

Settor84 of ME 8:14AM October 22, 2009

The Presidential Veto was used EXCLUSIVELY by every President up unto Andrew Jackson to stop unconstitutional laws. Waiting on the court is foolish and allows injustice to be committed (usually for several years) while the case fights its way up to SCOTUS. A signing statement is a glorified line-item veto. It is the responsibility of the President to fully veto any law with an unconstitutional provision. By using signing statements, Barack Obama is just saying that he gets a different standard than Bush. That, Mr. Schelsinger, is not progress at all; empty rhetoric is the only apt description.

Justin Gatlin of TX 12:30PM September 17, 2009

"Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government." -- NewsMax, November 21, 2003
H.R.5122 was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and will take effect October 1, 2007 (unless an earlier effective date is established by regulation). "On the same day, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abolishes the legal protection of habeas corpus, authorizes the president to detain and jail anyone (even US citizens) without charge and subject them to harsh interrogation that may or may not involve torture." [5]
Note: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, has just recently
been upheld by the courts as unconstitutional
In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.
Note : Note: the Bush administration enacted the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act circumventing
the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 changing
important legal principles, which limit the U.S.
government's ability to use the military to intervene
in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush,
whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial
law--under which the military takes direct control
over civilian administration.
Duncan v. Kahanamoku
“Our system of government clearly is the antithesis of total military rule and the founders of this country are not likely to have contemplated complete military dominance…. They were opposed to governments that placed in the hands of one man the power to make, interpret and enforce the laws….The established principle of every free people is, that the law shall alone govern; and to it the military must always yield“ .'(95)
Now, considering the above court decision one could assume that the enactment of Martial Law for the purpose of total military dominance would be unconstitutional.
“The military should always be kept in subjection to the laws of the country to which it belongs, and that he is no friend to the Republic who advocates the contrary.”

Bill of AZ 6:21AM September 04, 2009

Candidate Obama making his promise of no signing statements..
"I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."
He also went on to say that signing statement are not one of the Presidents powers under the US Constitution, as seen in this video of candidate Obama making the promise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc
Since taking Office President Obama has used signing statements to nullify and undermine Congressional legislation in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution, And Article II of the US Constitution..
Obama's first signing statement made part of the law his right to use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in "new" and "far-reaching" ways that he would "initiate," as well as the understanding that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch -- rather than congress -- would oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as Obama calls it "the Federal Government."
Obama's second signing statement declared his intention to violate dozens of sections of the law he was signing, including sections providing for the spending of funds, sections related to the creation of international treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against whistleblowers.
Obama's third signing statement, on the "Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009," announced his intention to violate requirements in the law related to the appointment of a government commission.
Obama's fourth signing statement, on a bill creating a "Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission" threw out a requirement that the Emperor provide that commission with information.
Obama's fifth signing statement was applied to a bill that created a commission and included on it six members of congress. The signing statement declared that those six commission members …
"will be able to participate only in ceremonial or advisory functions of [such a] Commission, and not in matters involving the administration of the act."
This is clear evidence that President Obama have violated the US Constitution and his Oath of Office. And are now grounds for lawful removal from office by impeachment..
Just as Congressman Dennis Kucinich Articles of Impeachment of George Bush in Article XXVI included as grounds for impeachment the unlawful use of Signing Statements on legislation passed by Congress..
Why was the News media all over Bush's Signing Statements yet they have remained silent on the Signing Statements made by President Obama..

Jah Red of CA 12:57PM July 05, 2009

SO, what I'm reading here is that although he condemns Bush for using this, Obama has stated he WOULD. How is this a good thing again?

CBP of LA 5:38PM April 21, 2009

Iagree with Steve Stolp above
Wish we had stayed a Republic.....vs. mob rule

Paul Holmes of FL 12:13PM March 24, 2009

"Where in the Constitution does it say the Congress or the President have the authority to take money from citizens and use it to bail out banks, prop up car companies, and provide health care to everyone in the country?"
Right... where in the constitution does it provide for roads schools or fire departments? Come on people. Congress has the specific constitutional authority to create agencies and form legislation to do all of those things. Propping up car companies included.

SW of WA 4:55PM March 16, 2009

Sorry Robert, your thoughts on who interprets constitutionality are in fact, incorrect. Although the Supreme Court has proclaimed it to be their realm, it is not defined anywhere that it is their role (at least anywhere lawful).
Thomas Jefferson stated many times that the Constitution was written in such a way that common men should have no difficulty interpreting its meaning. It was not written for a team of lawyers to decipher. It is a written testimony as to what authority (or actually lack thereof) a government ought to have over its people.
Go back and check on Andrew Jackson when the Supreme Court decided that the (unconstitutional) first bank of America was constitutional, and Jackson told them to basically go get bent. They had no more authority to prescribe what was constitutional than he did.
I wish this country had stayed a Republic.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

Steve Stolp of CA 4:36PM March 11, 2009