Patterico's Pontifications

4/18/2011

Obama Then and Now: Signing Statements

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:04 pm



Then:

Now:

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.

Hope?

Change?

Hypocrisy.

47 Responses to “Obama Then and Now: Signing Statements”

  1. But…but…but…that’s different, Patterico.

    Insert foot stomp.

    Watch the trolls use that approach shortly.

    Simon Jester (603e7c)

  2. The thing that the Left utterly does not understand is this: the only just law is a law that you would not mind being in the hands of your bitterest enemy.

    Simon Jester (603e7c)

  3. Carney’s attempt to make this out to be consistent with his prior positions was hysterical. And by hysterical, I mean laughable and pathetic.

    JD (318f81)

  4. This is particularly egregious when you realize just how plainly Obama is opposing the will of congress, which is based on a larger point about Obama’s abuse of power in having a cabinet that didn’t have to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

    And what happens if the Supreme Court says he must obey the law? Obama will simply refuse, playing legal games as he has with the drilling moratorium.

    Impeachment isn’t on the table, and even if he’s kicked out of office by the voters, he’s done tremendous harm to the notion of divided government. Bush also did a great wrong in using signing statements, but it just wasn’t nearly this severe, in many cases filling in administrative blanks to some extent (and sometimes quite a bit worse than that).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  5. Well at a certain point, Dustin, impeachment will have to be on the table,

    narciso (8a8b93)

  6. impeachment will have to be on the table,

    We’ve crossed that point. He’s lawless. His agencies are lawless. This doesn’t matter. Impeachment is a non-starter, politically. It would be good for America if this happened. It’s important to somehow restore the notion of a limited executive. But it’s not going to happen.

    Limited government is a paper tiger, now.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  7. well, this is certainly unexpected…

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  8. Basically, there is absolutely nothing on which Obama campaigned, not one of the many issues that created the “fierce, moral urgency” of electing him, that he’s not outright done the opposite of.

    Zip. Zilch. None.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. Yes, SPQR, that’s pretty amazing. The 2012 election could be a huge mess of Obama being faced with one excellent direct hypocrisy after another. He (from 2008) is his own fiercest critic.

    He doesn’t have the credibility to withstand a full scale condemnation. I guess I just notice his hypocrisy on things he was right about (signing statements, cutting the deficit in half (to $75 billion!?, tax cuts). Why shouldn’t Howard Dean primary him, though? Obama doesn’t stand for most democrats so much as he stands for Obama. He deserves to be primaried more than any president in American history.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  10. Dustin, evidently the White House is not doing a good job of imagining the ’12 campaign commercials.

    One could do hours and hours of commercials of Obama criticizing his own policies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  11. This just in: The POTUS is an indian giver. Details at eleventy!

    Icy Texan (cb089c)

  12. …and the sheep that make up the democratic party will still proclaim with a straight face that Obama has integrity and keeps his promises.

    …Lack of Transparency….
    …… taxing the middle class…
    ………not closing Gitmo……
    ………….using military tribunals…….
    ……………..issuing no-bid contracts….
    …………………being in the tank for lobbyist…..
    ……………claiming there were “shovel ready jobs” in a failed stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% and create millions of jobs…….
    …………..if you like your plan you can keep your plan….Obamacare is “budget neutral”…..”quality of care will not go down”…
    ………..”Drill Brazil Drill!!!!”
    ……………………Launching a war on an oil rich country without Congressional approval……that did not attack us….and posed no imminent threat.

    …Supporting Rendition…Indefinite detention…
    ……enhanced interrogation….NSA wire tapping…..bombing the sh!t our of villages and killing civilians……

    There is an expiration date on everything Obama says.
    No credibility what-so-ever.

    Baxter Greene (bdec36)

  13. Yes baxter not only that the left had a problem with Reagan giving money to terrorists but we are funding al-qaeda rebels and they condone it.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  14. Seems like a silly idea to defund advisers.

    sameso (280b35)

  15. Care to explain that?

    JD (318f81)

  16. Seems like a silly idea to defund advisers.

    If Obama wants these Czars to be advisors, serving under a secretary that managed congressional approval, then great.

    But it’s not silly at all to want some congressional consent to our administration. These Czars have power, and part of our system of checks and balances is vetting cabinet members. It’s clear some of these Czars are unable to withstand scrutiny.

    This is what democracy looks like. We are out of money, anyway. Obama’s administration is bloated enough without creating entire departments under people who don’t have to withstand a confirmation hearing.

    If you think that’s a silly law, you better petition congress to change it. It is the law, and Obama is breaking the law. They ought to impeach him. Sure, the Senate won’t convict, but how is Obama going to explain how he violated the law? It’ll be hard to pull off the Clinton maneuver. ‘The law is silly’ is probably the most intelligent defense he has, and it’s pretty stupid.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  17. The problem is that his “advisors” are set up as “Super Secretaries” with direct authority over the Cabinet Secretaries, but without the inconvenience of undergoing Senate confirmation – and having to answer to Congressional committees for their actions.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  18. “If Obama wants these Czars to be advisors, serving under a secretary that managed congressional approval, then great.”

    “Czars” are advisers. You didn’t know that?

    “These Czars have power, and part of our system of checks and balances is vetting cabinet members.”

    The Constitution describes which positions require congressional approval. Which “czars” do you feel match that description?

    “with direct authority over the Cabinet Secretaries”

    This is new.

    sameso (6fa251)

  19. This is what democracy looks like.

    No, this is what Crony Socialism looks like…
    unaccountable bureaucrats who answer to a disdainful executive, who gives his questioners the finger.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  20. Sameso has a remarkably similar style of idiocy to that which iamadimwit used to grace us with.

    JD (6e25b4)

  21. Yeah, hard to explain why Obama would agree to a ‘silly idea’ in the budget compromise. Was anybody holding the American people hostage when he made this agreement? If so, it doesn’t count.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  22. “Czars” are advisers. You didn’t know that?

    LOL. That’s pathetic. They are regulatory in nature. You have no idea what you are talking about, whatsoever. They do much more than answer questions from Obama, or provide advice to him.

    The Constitution describes which positions require congressional approval. Which “czars” do you feel match that description?

    You should read the constitution. You’re the one defending Obama for refusing to let congress define funding. So you’re already radically wrong.

    Here, let me help you a little more

    [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.

    IT’S UP TO CONGRESS, NOT YOU OR OBAMA.

    Deal with it. You can say these guys are just advisers and laugh it off, but you’re just lying. Maybe JD is right, and you are that psychopath, imdw. I don’t care… you’re clearly pretending to me a lot smarter than you actually are.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  23. The House Republican leadership should have a legal team ready to file a lawsuit the moment The Chosen One tries to pay a fake Russian–either he’ll be slapped down by the courts, or the moonbats will never be able to complain again if a Republican President starts bypassing Congress for controversial advisors. Win-win.

    MSE (05f8d0)

  24. So we can figure out from that section that if a “Czar” is an “officer,” they need congressional approval. So which ones do you think are officers? Note that someone can not need confirmation and still be quite important. Condi Rice was the National Security Advisor to Bush. That position isn’t confirmed by congress.

    sameso (1a5ab7)

  25. So we can figure out from that section that if a “Czar” is an “officer,” they need congressional approval

    Try again. Congress gets to decide who they allow the president to appoint. This is their power, much as it’s their power to defund anything they like.

    Get over it. You lost the argument.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  26. If you’re feeling as lazy as imdw did when he wasn’t being a pervert, you can just search for “as they think proper”.

    This is a classic political question that congress as 100% utter and absolute authority over. Obama has clearly gone beyond what congress thinks proper, and now he’s amending legislation.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  27. “Congress gets to decide who they allow the president to appoint”

    That’s if they’re “officers.”

    sameso (059a24)

  28. Imdw – how many names have you posted under, and been banned under?

    JD (109425)

  29. sameso provokes several reactions to his drivel:

    1- My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts.
    2- Facts to a Libtard are as Kryptonite to Superman.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  30. LOL, sameso. Anyone holding any office or has any authority of any kind under the president has to have the approval of congress. Many of these people get that approval without specific consent because Congress can delegate the issue.

    As the constitution clearly notes, this is completely at Congress’s discretion, and whatever Congress deems proper is the constitution’s final word.

    You said the constitution described which positions required congressional approval because you’re uneducated. You didn’t know it said that whatever congress seems proper rules. It was the typical douchey and vague constitutional reference from someone who has no idea what the constitution says.

    Regardless, Czars are holding offices. ‘Bank bailout czar, US Border Czar’ etc. They are, by definition, officers, then.

    Congress not only can say who requires consent, but they can defund anything they want to defund.

    You don’t like it? Too bad. The law is clear.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  31. Biden came up with the drug czar, the intelligence czar, DNI head, came from the 9/11 commission, but
    ‘green jobs czar, Whiskey Tango, where did that come from, howabout Mark Lloyd’s the FCC’s zampolit?

    narciso (79ddc3)

  32. “They are, by definition, officers, then.”

    Now you’re going to get all confused. Some people described as “czars” hold positions that have gotten senate confirmation, some hold positions created by congress which do not need confirmation, and some execute no powers of the US and thus are only advisers, not officers.

    samese (5e6f6f)

  33. No, samese, you’re just dissembling.

    They all hold offices. They are officers. Congress has full discretion to decide what is proper in what level of consent is required. The constitution is not ambiguous about this, and you know I’m no more confused about this than Brett Kimberlin was about whether he needed to execute that poor old woman to get access to her underage granddaughter again (I hear he actually cried when she cut him off!).

    Anyway, this is a cowardly way to argue your case. You claimed the constitution described the offices, and that was totally wrong. Congress decides which “inferior officers” need confirmation. You just plain can’t honestly read the constitution, can you?

    Of course, this whole mess of an argument is an effort to divert from the fact Congress can defund these czars if they want to, even if you think they are not officers or “inferior officers” (which is just a ridiculous claim on its face).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  34. Imdw’s sophistry never gets any less mendoucheous.

    JD (822109)

  35. None of the funds made available by this division may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of the following positions:

    (1) Director, White House Office of Health Reform.

    (2) Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

    (3) Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy.

    (4) White House Director of Urban Affairs.

    According to sameso, this is not within congress’s constitutional power.

    I’m particularly amused that sameso is claiming the Director of an Office cannot be described as an officer. It’s like he can’t speak english at all.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  36. “They all hold offices. They are officers.”

    The Bush administration OLC provided a definition of an “officer” that may be helpful here:

    “a position, however labeled, is in fact a federal office if (1) it is invested by legal authority with a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal Government, and (2) it is “continuing.” A person who would hold such a position must be properly made an “Officer[ ] of the United States” by being appointed pursuant to the procedures specified in the Appointments Clause.

    If you look up a list of people who have been referred to as “Czars,” you’ll find people who have met this definition, people who have not, and people who have even been confirmed by the senate!

    sameso (280b35)

  37. Sameso – do you deny that you have posted under multiple names, and used multiple IP addresses, as well as having been banned here previously?

    JD (822109)

  38. If you look up a list of people who have been referred to as “Czars,” you’ll find people who have met this definition, people who have not, and people who have even been confirmed by the senate!

    You act like everyone doesn’t already know this.

    Yes, indeed, some of these directors have been confirmed by senate before taking office.

    That doesn’t even slightly help your point, any more than it helped Brett Kimberlin to cry and threaten suicide when he was told to stay away from a young girl.

    You made three claims about the constitution that were flat wrong. Now you’re trying to change the topic by referencing Bush. I’m simply noting the constitution: what Congress did was completely within their constitutional power. Obama attempting to modify legislation is not constitutional, and in fact breaks his oath of office. Congress also can happily decide who is and isn’t an officer, and also which officers require congressional approval.

    Your argument that Directors of multimillion dollar offices are not officers is just illiterate, basically. You might as well try arguing that Brett Kimberlin is something other than a doped out moron / coward / pervert.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  39. “Congress also can happily decide who is and isn’t an officer, and also which officers require congressional approval.”

    Congress can’t require congressional approval for inferior officers. As the constitution states, they can give the appointment power to “the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” If they want to have senate confirmation, then the position has to be more than an inferior officer.

    sameso (059a24)

  40. Obama is a good prez it is bush that is an evil fasicst tyrant.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  41. /Sameso imitation off

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  42. Congress can’t require congressional approval for inferior officers.

    sameso’s claim

    but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,

    The US Constitution

    It’s up to Congress. The entire idea of consent is completely at Congress’s discretion. You are almost certainly aware that you’re lying at this point. You just want to stubbornly blather the wrong thing over and over again.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  43. Imdw cannot quit us. Have you posted links to the host’s house recently?

    JD (318f81)

  44. sameso: are you imdw? Straight question, so lets have a straight answer, please.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  45. Why is fascism considered far-right by these lefturds?

    And the trade unionists opposed nazism?

    DohBiden (15aa57)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0918 secs.