President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill
April 15, 2011 6:28 PM
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.”
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.
During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached signing statements to legislation 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.”
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."
Another rider bans the use of federal funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo to foreign countries unless certain conditions are met.
“Requiring the executive branch to certify to additional conditions would hinder the conduct of delicate negotiations with foreign countries and therefore the effort to conclude detainee transfers in accord with our national security,” the president wrote.
Another rider denies the ability of the Obama administration to prosecute Gitmo detainees in criminal court.
“The prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation and must be among the options available to us,” the president wrote. “Any attempt to deprive the executive branch of that tool undermines our Nation's counterterrorism efforts and has the potential to harm our national security.”
The president said in his statement he will work with Congress to repeal those provisions.
-Jake Tapper
7 comments:
A shadow government not controlled by the Congres, a new tyrant is leading America.The Congress is the only body which may appropriate funds and if they say there are no funds for czars then there are no funds for czars. If Obama does not abide by this then we have a Constitutional crisis and he has committed an impeachable offense."
Will is exactly right.
The executive branch is Constitutionally bound to enforce existing legislation -- until that legislation is ruled on in federal court.
For Obama to say that he will not abide by a certain provision in this bill is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the executive branch is not supposed to interpret the law. Interpretation of the law is the courts' domain.
If Obama gets away with this latest attempt to rule by his own interpretations (i.e., fiat), we have destruction of federalism. And who's to say what he'll deem next as his prerogative?
One more thought: If he wanted to challenge the provision in a Constitutional manner, he should have refused to sign the legislation.
Obama is such a hypocrite, such a liar:
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."
Now, he's making up the rules as he goes along -- and in blatant disregard of the Constitution and his own previous positions on this topic. Pffffft!
A non veto - veto.
'I had my fingers crossed behind my back'
This is where John Boehner, Peter King, joins with Bachmann, et al, and Rand Paul, Rubio, and Johnson join with McConnell and VOTE CENSURE of the president, then seek out people who ACTUALLY CARE from the other side such as SHOCK SHOCK, Kucinich and Sanders and Lieberman
Yeaaaaah, not gonna happen.
You are right, so that brings in the final question.. WHY EVEN BOTHER WITH THE BUDGET CHARADE if Barry can snd then DOES sign himself out amid silence the of his 'opponents'?
What do they gain?
And how long do they think it is gained for?
Post a Comment