One rider [to the bill] – 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.Tapper notes that when he was running for President, Obama was very critical of the way President Bush used signing statements "in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.” And then-Senator Obama said he would "not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law." Of course, Obama is President now.
“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.”
In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.
April 15, 2011
Obama issues a "signing statement" saying he won't follow the part of the budget bill that he thinks violates separation of powers.
Jake Tapper reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
90 comments:
Someone should tell Obama what happened to the Tsars.
And then-Senator Obama said he would "not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."
And candidate Obama was against any sort of health insurance mandate, was going to cut the deficit in half, and close GITMO.
He's a pathological liar, and clearly mediocre, even on his best day.
Yet one more bait and switch for the unwary.
Althouse missed the 'Obama is like Bush' tag..
Didn't Obama criticize the Bush signing statements?
I know many liberals did.
A normal, rational person probably thinks that a person holds a political office.
Live and work in DC for a while and you discover that the political office holds the person.
Someone should tell Obama what happened to the Tsars.
They were declared saints?
Oh, you mean, the being-massacred-by-communists part?
Oh, that one doesn't really work either.
Umm, what's happening in this movie?
This aspect of the Repubs bill was petty IMO. I don't blame Obama for standing his ground. And the dollars at stake are like ants on Kilimanjaro.
YoungHegelian, I thought you were going to conclude: Live and work in DC for a while and you discover there are no normal, rational people in political office.
What does anyone expect from this asshole by now? The only surprise would be if the MSM bothered to point it out.
As El Rushbo says, everything Little Zero says has an expiration date.
Anent the czars, it's typical. Anything he doesn't like, he ignores.
So much for the lecturer in Constitutional law.
So, he's going to pay for them out of his own pocket?
Live and work in DC for a while and you discover that the political office holds the person.
Or you could write:
Live and work in DC for a while and you discover that it's full of insufferable, power-loving geeks.
Of course, that wouldn't make the same point, but it would be just as true.
As I recall, the House has the Constitutional responsibility to create all spending legislation. In this case, the legislation prohibits the executive from spending any money on these Cars. So, Obama can appoint all the Car's he wants, he just cannot spend federal funds to pay them.
@MadisonMan
"Live and work in DC for a while and you discover there are no normal, rational people in political office."
Strangely, being so close to the process has not made me that cynical. Quite the opposite, since one sees these people as mere fallible human beings often asked to square a circle. Someone has to do politics, and I certainly don't assume I'd do better.
But it's hard to describe to an outsider how government agencies & bureaucracies contain agendas that overwhelm like a rushing river the outsiders elected to purportedly lead them.
WV: palifist: Pacifists for Palin
What part of "Congress has the power of the purse strings" does he not get? He can always use volunteers, I guess.
The President is free to get advice from whomever he chooses, so Obama is correct on that point. But I don't think he has the authority to pay those people if Congress specifically prohibits it. Is there an Executive Branch slush fund that pays the salary for however many people the President claims to require as advisors?
The "game" to figure out is the one that Jimmy Carter couldn't implement. Though he tried not leaving the White House to attend Ronald Reagan's inauguration.
As to "executive privilege" ... my guess is that he intends to keep it.
And, given that Trump got so much speed up to race against Obummer ... it makes ya wonder how the republicans leave so much unsaid. And, undone.
Karl Rove's not in charge! As soon as the November results came in, the old hounds among the elites should have hightailed it out of leading anyone!
Maybe, we can do a tradeoff?
We fire the over-tanned guy, and the chinless wonder. And, if the czar's leave now, we can call it "even."
Where does it say that the President gets to pad the payroll and appoint an entire tribe of his radical friends? Who needs the courts to interpret the Constitution?
He's looking less like a President all the time and increasingly like a mole.
Barack H. Bush
Wasn't defunding a few czars part of the deal he signed on to, like, two days ago? Why bother negotiating with him if he can change the terms unilaterally?
(the word verification for this comment was "pureolle" which is pretty damn appropriate).
This, of course, is one reason why one shouldn't permit the abuse of power by an elected official or President because he or she is of one's own party or purports to represent one's own political views. Once one lets such abuse go on because "we trust he'll use his power judiciously and we agree with what he's doing,", it becomes part of the powers that will be passed on to the next person to hold that office...and eventually he or she will be someone of the other party and whose views and goals one vehemently opposes.
Obama's abuse of his powers is possible because Bush's similar such abuses were cheered by his heedless supporters. And the chain of such abuse of power goes back and back, each iterative precedent leading to a point where many accept that the President has the power of a king...and lo and behold...he does!
And so where is he going to get the money to pay his “czars?”
Is he gonna write a check on his bank account?
I could have sworn when constitutional grounds were being questioned that SCOTUS was the one who deciced, no Barrack Cesar Obama.
Yes Robert, he is mimicking Bush, but Bush didn't say it was wrong bunless it was right.
"Obama issues a "signing statement"
SUCKERRRRRS!
Prof Bainbridge was just reviewing Larry Tribe's assessment that Reagan's circumvention of the Boland Amendment was "a breach that may well entail an impeachable abuse of power." On funding the Czars, Obama has far less wiggle room. Will Prof. Tribe offer a first draft on those articles of impeachment?
As I've said before, he's an incompetent liar that can't even keep his lies straight. You should have a new tag, Erkle the Liar.
Robert Cook said...
Obama's abuse of his powers is possible because Bush's similar such abuses were cheered by his heedless supporters.
You have to love leftard logic, Erkle does it because his predecessor did because you believe that Bush had done something abusive and clearly did not since he's had more congressional oversight than any other president. Even this current president is getting a pass in way never seen by your cadre. You are just as bad a liar as Erkle is.
I think it's wrong to use the "Obama is like Bush" tag for this, though I understand why you have. Obama's cynicism in this example, not to mention his hypocrisy, make him nothing like Bush, who was a decent man, wrongly maligned.
Obama is a whole different animal.
Obama is Lucy with the football.
And we're Charlie Brown.
No; we're the Charlie Browniest.
While I know it'll bring comfort to no one here, have I mentioned I'm running for President?
Trump's being a friend of "the blacks" was a nudge,...
What we have learned is that there is no reason to negotiate with Obama. Even though he said he would give up some of his czars for the CR he reneged once he got what he wanted. No wonder Michelle has such a sour attitude all of the time.
Obama has to have his czars as an end run around the checks and balances, and the oversight that would apply to cabinet officers. This is reason enough why he should not be allowed to have them.
He was wrong then; he's right now. Progress.
I don't quite get how Obama can override this. If the positions are defunded, what are the people going to be paid with?
Certainly he can have whatever unpaid advisers he wants, but Congress controls the purse strings. I'm not sure what the workaround for that is.
AJ,
It is not minor. Obama appoints weak, ineffectual non-entities as cabinet officers, and then end-runs them with czars from the White House that he says are exempt from Congress' oversight.
and what he says is that he is going to pay them with Federal funds regardless of what Congress thinks about it!
"Barack H. Bush"
No. Barack H. Putin.
I can see Russia from the White House!
A man was driving down a quiet country lane when a boar strayed right into the road. The man tried to stop, but was going too fast - whack! No more boar!
Shaken, the man pulled over at a farmhouse and rang the doorbell. A farmer appeared. The man somewhat nervously said, "I think I killed your boar, please allow me to replace him."
"Suit yourself," the farmer replied, "the sows are round the back."
Peter
Article I, Section 9: "No Money shall be drawn by the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"
Obama spends Federal money on the defunded positions, he should be impeached, removed, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for embezzlement of government funds.
If the Congress passed a budget which de-funded a duly authorized department of the Administration, such as the Department of Agriculture, the president would be on rather firmer ground trying to find a way around the intent of Congress. However, there is no law authorizing these "czar" positions, they derive strictly from the very shaky concept called executive privilege, which has no explicit constitutional mandate. If pushed to its logical extreme the President could have just about anything, including his own private army or praetorian guard, and Congress would have no choice but to fund it. Ludicrous! This situation is ripe for a court test. The trick is to get past those federal district judges who think ordinary American citizens have no right to complain about the behavior of the POTUS, except once every four years.
To pay them legally Obama has to economize elsewhere in his White House budget, which he is temperamentally unable to do. Obama and family are living high on the public hog, and they're not about to cull the West Wing of junior staff to keep their crony czars on the teat. We should keep a weather eye peeled on the General Services Administration because there are lots of ways to pad expenditures in day to day "house keeping," travel, security, and operations to accumulate and disperse clandestine funds. When this happens in the private sphere it's called embezzlement, and people usually go to jail when it happens.
I don't quite get how Obama can override this. If the positions are defunded, what are the people going to be paid with?
Certainly he can have whatever unpaid advisers he wants, but Congress controls the purse strings. I'm not sure what the workaround for that is.
Same. Someone who knows explain how these people are supposed to get paid.
I kinda wouldn't mind seeing Obama stay in office another term, on the sole condition that Congress re-established its historic counter valence to the Executive branch, which includes the ability to override vetoes.
He's a likable enough chump to oversee the rebalancing of domestic government powers.
Yes, let it happen on his watch.
Look, if you want Obama to keep his campaign promises and positions, you're gonna have to vote for him again. Give him a mulligan for Christ's sake. It's just a game after all.
Obama is a such a fucking loser. A total asswad. A fucking prick loser. What a fucking moron.
make him nothing like Bush, who was a decent man, wrongly maligned.
Randi Rhodes just called Bush a total moron on the radio.
Randi Rhodes just called Bush a total moron on the radio.
Totally accurate if you apply Rhodes rules, which explains why her brand recognition/earnings ratio is upside down.
"Why bother negotiating with him if he can change the terms unilaterally?"
It's clear he thinks the Repubs are stupid.
"I can see Russia from the White House!"
And as someone said: "Barack Obama can see the Soviet Union from his economy."
Obama's abuse of his powers is possible because Bush's similar such abuses were cheered by his heedless supporters.
Assuming that it is an abuse of power, this doesn't reflect well on President Obama, does it?
WV: duphylly.
Obama's abuse of his powers is possible because Bush's similar such abuses were cheered by his heedless supporters.
Anyone who believes Obama is sitting in the White House thinking "bwee hee hee, Bush did it so I can too" is delirious.
Inasmuch as either Bush or Obama abused his power, it was possible because Congress doesn't make use of the impeachment power. The President can basically do whatever he pleases if Congress isn't willing to cowboy up and do something about it. After what happened to the last Congress that tried impeaching a criminal President, though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for another one to try the same thing.
This doesn't surprise me at all. This is the character I saw when he was campaigning. A nothing. An empty suit. An affirmative action individual who was been promoted throughout his life. He's always said anything that he wanted to, and when it turned out to be a lie, he would shrug his shoulders and act like nothing happened. Shame on those that voted for him.
“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,”
This is the heart of his argument, and it's directly contradicted by Article II, Section 2:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Senate is explicitly given the right to confirm the people the President turns to for advice.
"In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it."
The President is free to do anything he wants if no Republicans ever dare challenge him in court.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats will use the courts to enforce what they perceive is the law.
Republicans, on the other hand, are fucking morons. They don't understand how to wield power.
It's the budget negotiations writ large again: Democrats are willing to shut the government down in order to execute on their campaign promises, whereas Republicans are unwilling to do that. So Republicans lose the negotiation. If you're never willing to call your opponents bluff, you are what they call in poker a "fucking chump."
Republicans won't sue Obama over this, and so, he'll get away with it. Look, even murder is legal if the cops are too pussy to arrest you.
Barack Obama should be impeached for his crimes ... but he won't be. So he'll keep committing crimes.
"The Senate is explicitly given the right to confirm the people the President turns to for advice."
And all spending must first be approved by the House of Representatives according to the US Constitution.
Obama's claim here is that he has the power to receive advice - and that's true as far as it goes. But the law just passed doesn't prevent him from doing that.
What it prevents him from doing is "paying" people for that advice with OUR. FUCKING. MONEY.
Barack Obama is a thief. The Congress has passed a law specifically barring him from laundering our money to his fucking cronies - and he is defying that law. The president is a crook.
He should be arrested for his crimes and tried ... just like an American would be if we stole money.
And candidate Obama was against any sort of health surance mandate, was going to cut the deficit in half, and close GITMO.
He's a pathological liar, and clearly mediocre, even on his best day.
Like George W. Retard was against nation building, and promised to be a uniter and not a divider?
Rube, you voted for him ... enjoy your own BS ....
The big difference here is that Obama has announced specific intent to ignore a provision of the budget that prohibits the spending of any funds on those positions. That's not "well, this is ambiguous so I'll interpret it this way." Instead, it is "screw Congress, we're spending the money despite a ban in the appropriations bill". That flies in the face of Constitution itself on a really fundamental level.
And it also constitutes an unambiguously impeachable offense -- http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/314840.php
"Like George W. Retard was against nation building, and promised to be a uniter and not a divider?"
Oh no. He merely changed his mind. At least that's the pathetic excuse I was given for why Barack Obama lied about using public campaign financing. What was Obama's "9/11" that caused his change of mind? I can tell you what Bush's was; I just did.
And that "uniter and not a divider" sure seemed to get a sufficient number of Dems to vote for the AUMF. Oh, that's right, their excuse about that was he tricked them somehow. Reflects poorly on them when "George W. Retard" outsmarts them.
Maybe sometimes people are just wrong about their original position when they flip-flop and are too proud to admit that they hadn't thought that position through. Maybe sometimes things happen to cause them to change their minds. Walker never campaigned on "busting the unions," FDR never campaigned on attacking (French!) North Africa, and Obama also didn't campaign on attcking North Africa. And yet...
To save time on needless comments, how about some new tags for Obama posts: If Bush did this babies would explode, read it here 'cause it won't be in the NYT, Democrat hypocrisy, when rubes gain political power, unintended consequences of the voting booth, grab your wallet.
Greg, my recollection—it's been a few years—is that the Bush administration's stance on its NSA programs was that they could and were going to do it even assuming for sake of argument that FISA and the Stored Communications Act prohibited them, because the restrictions in those acts encroached on the inherent authority of the executive power vested in the President. I'm inclined to think that argument fails in the particulars, cf. Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 177-78 (1804), but is well-taken in concept. Now, concededly that view wasn't announced in a signing statement, but it seems to be the same principle. Bush, like Obama, effectively "announced specific intent to ignore a provision of" a statute enacted by Congress; was that not also "screw Congress, we're doing it anyway"?
B. Hussein can choose his advisors, but Congress pays them. Congress has the power of the purse.
Like George W. Retard was against nation building, and promised to be a uniter and not a divider?
Laugh out loud funny.
When Obama's hypocrisy is exposed, you can't bring yourself to criticize your "sort of a god" President. You just have to shout "Bush"!
Loser.
Good thing the guy is focused on the real issues:
The president, in an unscripted moment with donors in Chicago, was talking about the need to innovate in technology.
"The Oval Office, I always thought I was going to have really cool phones and stuff," he said during a small fundraising event at a Chicago restaurant. "I'm like, c'mon guys, I'm the president of the United States. Where's the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It doesn't happen."
Note that he's strutting around the stage in a Chicago Bulls cap.
So Presidential!
So constitutional lecturer and stuff!
Am I wrong, or does this mean the next Republican president can unilaterally defund the Department of Education?
It was baaad when Bush used signing statements. It is gooood when Obama uses signing statements because it is OBAMA using signing statements.
People seem to think there are contradictions and inconsistencies in Obama's statements and logic. There is not. Obama is completely consistent in that whatever he does is good.
Not to worry DAD, he's a good, decent, honest fellow, and we can trust him.
Clean too.
Prof.;
You need a "All presidents are alike" tag.
Isn't it time for those on the left & right stop viewing BO through the Bush lens?
"That's not "well, this is ambiguous so I'll interpret it this way." Instead, it is "screw Congress, we're spending the money despite a ban in the appropriations bill". That flies in the face of Constitution itself on a really fundamental level."
Make no mistake about it ... they are doing this for one reason, and one reason only.
They want to set the precedent that the Congress cannot withhold funds for anything that the President (alone) deems to "violate the separation of powers."
On its face this is a fucking ludicrous claim. The federal checkbook IS the Congress' check on Executive power grabs. It's a laughable argument ... but unfortunately I predict one Republicans just won't sue him for.
Obama and Eric Holder are still pissed off that the Congress forced them - by withholding funds - to try terrorists at Guantanamo Bay instead of bringing them to New York to give the terrorists a propoganda win.
They want to upset the historical power structure in America by outright theft if necessary. They'll just steal the money and dare a Republican to call a cop.
As Americans, we allow these people to do that at our mortal peril. This should be perceived as a traitorous act on the part of a president the intent of which is to destroy our country and remove from the people the power they have over tyrannical leaders.
Am I wrong, or does this mean the next Republican president can unilaterally defund the Department of Education?
Excellent question. If the signing statement is an assertion in the administration's ability to clear out it's own ear wax, and the dept of ed is a position within the administration, can't a future president Q-tip the shit out of Carter's Folly?
"Am I wrong, or does this mean the next Republican president can unilaterally defund the Department of Education?"
Yes, you're wrong.
Republicans can't do that because Democrats would sue them in the courts and not let them do it.
Why aren't Republicans suing Democrats?
Why are Democrats allowed to do whatever they fucking please and no Republicans will stand up and defend us against this tyranny?
Fucking cowards they are. Fucking cowards.
This country needs a new political party if we're going to defeat Democrats.
Randi Rhodes just called Bush a total moron on the radio.
She's still around? Who knew?
Obama is Bush.
Did Obama object to Bush signing statements? Does a bear s**t in the woods?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=seAR1S1Mjkc
In fact, since taking office, this administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers in two years than had been prosecuted in the previous 40 years. Its staff even meets with lobbyists across the street from the White House so they don't have to publicly disclose the meetings.
The administration also - and this is true - censored nearly 200 pages of internal emails about their efforts to make government more transparent.
This is from uh, The Daily Show?
Next up:
Obama issues a Signing Statement defunding Congress....
solutions.....
Ms.Althouse notes that Senator Obama criticized President Bush's use of signing statements, but fails to note the further statement reported by Mr. Tapper, to wit:
"The president said that no one "doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that." "
This is tendentious reporting on Ms. Althouse's part.
"Assuming that it is an abuse of power, this doesn't reflect well on President Obama, does it?"
Not at all. Do you assume I think otherwise, or that I am a supporter of Obama? He is just the latest in a long line of criminal minions of the military/industrial/financial complex to occupy the White House.
"It was baaad when Bush used signing statements. It is gooood when Obama uses signing statements because it is OBAMA using signing statements."
Says who?
"Not to worry DAD, he's a good, decent, honest fellow, and we can trust him."
Funny, (while I know you're being snarky), but that's what Bush's supporters thought of him, too.
"The president said that no one "doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that." "
So, Jack, your arguing that Obama has a Constitutional prerogative to spend federal funds?
Because the Constitution indicates you are incorrect.
Are any of the purportedly prohibited positions of Climate Change Czar, Health Care Czar, Urban Affairs Czar, and Car Czar actually filled at the moment, or likely to be re-filled for that matter?
Did the rider actually cut/remove dollars from the Executive Office funding source? I presume it is a General Expense type discretionary appropriation with very fungible monies and expenditure descriptions.
In other words, is this signing statement just another Roaring Mouse moment?
"In other words, is this signing statement just another Roaring Mouse moment?"
It's a test.
Just like terrorists sometimes group together ... not actually doing anything technically illegal ... but praying loudly to Allah, cursing Americans, going to the bathroom a lot.
It's a test designed to see what the reaction will be.
Barack Hussein Obama is doing the same thing. He's testing to see whether he can get away with this.
Maybe he won't. Maybe Republicans will sue and the court will slap him down.
But maybe he will get away with it. He won't know unless he tries it.
And if he can get away with this ... then he's effectively neutered the United States Congress (and by neutering the Congress he can completely disarm the American people).
If Barack Hussein Obama can spend money IN SPITE of laws we pass in the Congress, then this isn't America any longer. It's nothing less than a dictatorship that we must bring down.
With all deliberate speed.
"Of course, Obama is a lying sack of shit."
Fixed.
Robert Cook said...
"It was baaad when Bush used signing statements. It is gooood when Obama uses signing statements because it is OBAMA using signing statements."
Says who?"
Obama Zombies that's who. You know Garage and Jeremy and shiloh and people like that.
Obama could shit on the White House lawn and they will praise him for using natural fertilizer.
Just curious, does the President have a legal obligation to uphold the law? I know he is supposed to uphold the Constitution. What does the Constitution say?
"Obama spends Federal money on the defunded positions, he should be impeached, removed, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for embezzlement of government funds."
You people act like impeachment is even possible. As long as any President has 1/3+1 Senators who will refuse to confirm impeachment, he can do anything he likes. Lincoln proved that in the first Civil War.
"As long as any President has 1/3+1 Senators who will refuse to confirm impeachment, he can do anything he likes. Lincoln proved that in the first Civil War."
Really? Because I think John Wilkes Booth would beg to differ.
Barack Obama might want to think on that a bit.
Me: "Assuming that it is an abuse of power, this doesn't reflect well on President Obama, does it?"
Robert Cook: "Not at all. Do you assume I think otherwise, or that I am a supporter of Obama?"
Me again: A simple "Of course not" would have sufficed. I don't think I assumed you were a supporter of the current President. I did wonder whether you think Mr. Obama is so weak-willed that he can cite his predecessor as an excuse for repeating his mistakes.
WV: wavann.
This is the full quote from the Trapper piece.:
"Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
The president said that no one "doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that." "
Nothing inconsistent there.
President Urkel
This is the full quote from the Trapper piece.:
"Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
The president said that no one "doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that." "
Nothing inconsistent there.
Again, where is the Constitutional prerogative of spending money for something Congress has said will not be funded?
Can you list where that is?
Post a Comment