Yesterday, in the comments:
Cole’s not stupid, so I suspect we’re being trolled.
Yeah, that’s quite the flip-flop, the way Obama approached signing statements exactly as he said he would in the questionnaire.
You’re not getting slaughtered in the comments because of their title, John, it’s because you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about on this one.
You can loathe the imperial presidency, think Obama is violating the Constitution with Guantanamo and Bagram, and still side with him on this particular signing statement. Because he’s hiring policy advisors with dedicated money that the budget deal does not affect.
You’re just unbelievably wrong here.
Yeah, but it’s not like John is a constitutional lawyer who should be expected to be able to delve into the substance of this, or have a take that goes beyond noting a superficial inconsistency that evaporates with even a cursory review of constitutional doctrine or Obama’s actual answer to the Globe questionnaire.
Now, if some self-proclaimed deep thinker and constitutional expert were to push this same line, that would really demonstrate a low, dishonest shamelessness.
Ahem:
As I tried to state yesterday (and actually did), there are lots of things about which we can debate. Whether signing statements are a good thing or a bad thing, whether there is a qualitative or quantitative difference between the use of signing statements by Obama and Bush, whether or not Obama is correct in the current signing statement (I think he is), whether Congress can or will address signing statements and their recourse in doing so, and then a whole other bunch of arguments about the advisors and how they are picked and what sort of accountability we can hold them to. All of those are arguing points that i think are useful and interesting.
But what simply is as clear as is possible is that candidate Obama CLEARLY stated on the campaign trail that he would not use signing statements, and here he is clearly using one. Yes, I’m aware he said other things in other forums, but this is inarguable. Watch the damned video. Use your lying eyes.
Svensker
I prefer to think what I what to think and ignore all contradictory facts, thank yew very much.
CT Voter
I read the post, but didn’t join in the comments (or read them), and pretty much agreed with you, John, but this
is, well, not up to your typical standards.
It’s inarguable that he said in that video that he wouldn’t use signing statements, but doesn’t the fact that “he said other things in other forums”, make this video less than an “inarguable” defense of the charge of flip-flopping?
If this video were the only record of Obama’s statements about signing statements, then yes, it is inarguable that he flip-flopped last week.
If.
OzoneR
so you’re issue is that he did something he promised not to do to do something right?
No wonder liberals always lose.
Bob Loblaw
Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald…
(I’m still not sure what the point is in commenting on outlandish and exaggerated campaign “promises” that were meant exclusively for soundbytes and not actual policy direction, because it’s not like that’s never been done before…)
Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald…
(Besides, using the word flip-flop with regards to a Democratic officeholder is guaranteed to shut down the conversation and/or make the baby Jesus cry.)
Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald Greenwald…
Citizen Alan
Obviously, this wasn’t intended to be a factual statement. /ducks
Nick L
Just to recenter the debate: did Obama flip-flop as prez, or was he just a sloppy campaigner who didn’t use the requisite nuance in that particular instance?
I guess when you phrase it that way, the debate sure sounds pedantic and fucking stupid, doesn’t it?
Ella in New Mexico
You’re right, of course. But like so many other things Obama has kept in his tool kit from the Bush era, he’s afraid to exert his Presidential power in ways that would prove how wrong it was to use them. He’s unwilling to be the sacrificial lamb in Presidential history who stops the madness, mostly because it’s just not practical with all the shit he has to accomplish.
He could have vetoed the bill. He could have signed it and simultaneously had the Justice Department seek a court order blocking that part of the law for further review–he clearly would win that lawsuit because his legal rationale is sound. He just took the easy way out.
WaterGirl
I missed the scuffle from yesterday, so I don’t know the details of what was discussed. i just watched the video you posted, and I heard Obama say he would not use signing statements to say “well, I don’t like this part so I’m not gonna follow it”.
But in the recent signing statement, what I understood Obama to say was that he didn’t like this part, and he thought it was unconstitutional, and he was gonna do everything he could to get it overturned. But he didn’t say that he was just gonna ignore the part he didn’t like and would not follow the law in the meantime – he made it clear that he would use everything in his power to overturn it, not ignore it.
So I feel that Obama has remained true to his word on this.
Edit: He is staying true to the separation of powers, which he respects. Unlike Bush.
@Ella in New Mexico: I fully expect him to follow up, perhaps in the way you have proposed. What he did was go on record saying he thinks this is unconstitutional and that he is going to try to get it changed. He did not say he was going to ignore the law in the meantime. This seems, to me, perfectly in line with how a constitutional scholar and an honorable man would proceed.
RinaX
@CT Voter:
Truth be told, this is more or less the standard I’ve come to expect.
Corner Stone
Campaign promises are garbage.
But Cole, your point is made nonetheless.
Some will pretzel their ass to get into correct position on this.
Nick L
@Ella in New Mexico:
On the first point, this was a case where vetoing was a particularly unsavory option – part of Obama’s given rationale was that he signed the bill to prevent a government shutdown (which probably would have happened had he vetoed the bill).
As for the second point: eh, I got nothin’. I guess the courts might have taken several weeks/months, during which Obama wouldn’t have access to the czars, though that’s a pretty weak argument.
Just Some Fuckhead
Quit being such a firebagger, John. But my take on this is who fucking cares. This is just the fiddling while Rome burns.
Omnes Omnibus
He said he would not use signing statements to get his way and/or do an end run around Congress. He did not say that he would not use signing statements for other purposes. Using a signing statement to indicate the executive branch’s interpretation of the law or to indicate the way the executive branch intends to enforce the law is a long standing practice and one that Obama did not, in this video, promise not to do.
IM
I would have done the same. There are no “czars” after all, that is just a media term. So this part of the budget deal can’t be executed by the administration.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@Corner Stone:
.
.
If that’s true, then there is no point in the electorate “informing” themselves. Or voting.
But Corner, your point is made nonetheless – the coveted Balloonbagger of the Week Award was bestowed upon OzoneR on the previous thread for his pretzelian punditry.
.
.
kdaug
@OzoneR: Likely get a better reception if you learn how to punctuate correctly.
Just sayin’.
YellowDog
I ignored the debate yesterday, because it does not bother me if the President changes his mind when faced with extraordinary circumstances. Bush used signing statements to craft his own versions of legislation; Obama used a signing statement to rebuff an effort to limit his ability to implement policies that are the purview of the executive branch.
OzoneR
@kdaug: It’s a blog, not a term paper, who cares.
WyldPirate
They can’t. Obots are the equivalent of Bushbots–master excuse-makers and deniers of the reality in front of them.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@OzoneR: But wasn’t that what we blasted Bush for? After all, the GOP thought he was doing what they thought was right.
In any case, mountains and molehills. In the grand scheme of things, who the hell will care?
sukabi
someone’s DYING for another blog fire… Are you bored John?
IM
Comment 12: first use of firebagger
Comment 19: first use of obot.
That will be a very constructive thread, I guess.
ACS
OK, I missed the other thread on this, so apologies if this is rehashing things.
A few people have said that Obama is using the signing statement differently than Bush in this instance because it is just setting forth his determination about it’s constitutionality, not whether he will enforce it fully. But that doesn’t seem to be what the article that John linked to says.
The article says that the signing statement “construes” the law in a way that Obama thinks is constitutional, which–whatever the substantive merits of the constitutional argument–is exactly the thing that people found objectionable about Bush’s signing statements.
Can some of the defenders of Obama explain how/why I’m misreading things here? Not trying to be snarky, I’m seriously confused as to the argument in favor of Obama on this one.
OzoneR
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Yes it is, but since Obama’s been President, I’ve enjoyed seeing endless criticism about how Obama should use Bush tactics to get his way. Funny now having done that, we’re having a debate over the tactics while the policy is blasted by the other side without any counter argument. whoocoodanode?
Obama’s got to be as successful as Bush was in pushing his agenda and he’s got to do it without using his tactics. If the left set this hurdle any higher, it would be on the Moon.
joe from Lowell
Ahem, you found something to back up the claim you made, after not having any yesterday? Good for you, dude!
You mean like the questionnaire you cited yesterday, which you thought contained a statement that he didn’t believe in signing statements under any circumstances, and didn’t?
patrick II
President Obama said at one point that congress has it’s room, the president has his room. He later said that he would not use signing statement as a way of getting around congress. He did not say he would never used one, unless you count that first “no” which he later qualified.
Congress tried to step into the presidents room by saying who the president could and could not take advice from. There is nothing in this speech that is contradicts the use of a signing statement to stop that encroachment.
Corner Stone
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: Uncle Clarence Thomas, when did you consider informing the electorate was the actual goal of a campaign?
And I agree, Nick deserves a Lifetime Award for his relentless “Nothing Can Be Done!” assault.
Kane
Not all signing statements are created equal. There are times when a signing statement is necessary for a president to execute his constitutional duties, and there are times when a signing statement is simply used to expand the powers of the presidency.
If you can show that there has been an attempt of the Obama administration to broaden the powers of the Executive Branch, then that’s a serious issue to discuss.
On the otherhand, if you’re objection is simply that President Obama did something that candidate Obama said he wouldn’t do, then I say, Forget it, John. It’s Chinatown.
Nellcote
So the moral is that candidates should never make definitive statements or that office holders should never fight back with legal means when the opposition seeks to illegally restrict authority?
joe from Lowell
@IM: Comment 12: first use of firebagger
Comment 19: first use of obot.
Comment 4: first irrelevant invocation of Glenn Greenwald to start a fight about the invocation of Glenn Greenwald.
But when the subject of the post is that a video proves that a questionnaire says something it didn’t say, it’s a pretty safe bet it’s not going to be a useful thread.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@OzoneR:
Considering how quickly the Ralph Nader Brigade fired up their keyboards, I’ll chalk this point in your favor.
Bob Loblaw
@ACS:
The argument is fuck Congress, fuck Republicans, and fuck signing statements. Nobody cared about signing statements before 2004, and nobody should care about them now. Of all the things to care about, a President not allowing a reactionary Congress to unilaterally force staffing decisions on him is not even in the top 1000. Nor is it evidence of an out of control Imperial Presidency DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN.
Omnes Omnibus
@ACS: The argument is basically that Bush used signing statements to twist legislation into something that is was not. Obama more or less said that he has certain Constitutionally mandated responsibilities and powers and that he would interpret this law so as to comport with those responsibilities and powers.
Paul W.
I seem to remember that most of the comments WERE, in fact, an argument over the legality/usefullness/necessity of signing statements. Most people thought you were wrong, when do you address that part of the conversation?
kdaug
@OzoneR: Have you heard the story of the m_c?
wasabi gasp
They should be tat statements. It’ll make ’em think twice about becoming an ex-president who looks like De Niro in Cape Fear.
joe from Lowell
@ACS:
I can only speak for myself – I don’t really know what other people criticized Bush’s use of signing statements for – but my criticism of him over this issue was similar to my criticism of the Senate Republicans for their record use of filibusters in the last two Congresses: overuse of what should be a very rare action, used only in extreme circumstances, in order to make the thwarting of the will of Congressional majorities a near-constant part of the legislative process.
IIRC, this is Obama’s 12th such signing statement, compared to literally thousands issued by Bush.
Zifnab
@OzoneR:
He’s just highlighting the not-so-black-and-white nature of politics. Obama said he wouldn’t use signing statements for political convenience. Then he used said signing statements in a way he said he wouldn’t.
Honestly, I think there’s a better way to handle this. Obama has private console. He’s got a DoJ. If the law really is as unconstitutional as he thinks it is, bring it before a judge. Ask for the law to be suspended until the judge can issue a ruling. Then get a ruling and appeal as necessary. Bring it to the SCOTUS if you have to and let them rule on the issue.
But issuing a signing statement and turning your back on Congress isn’t the right way to handle this kind of Congressional douche-baggery. We have a courts system EXACTLY for this reason.
I don’t like what Obama did here at all, even if I do think his ultimate assumption of Constitutionality is correct. It’s not the executive office’s right to make that kind of decision.
OzoneR
@kdaug: Why? Am I him too now?
Martin
Since the first quote is mine…
Since there are other places where Obama was much more nuanced on his position (as you acknowledge) isn’t this the equivalent of saying that Obama is flip-flopping when he says there are 50 states (because he once said there were 57).
I’m not suggesting that this was a mis-statement by Obama, just that it was an inconsistent statement given all of the other things he’s said. But we’re now calling this a flip-flop? I thought a flip-flop was Mitt pimping his health care plan and then attacking the same federal plan because Obama passed it. Or damn near any position McCain has ever held. Or Gingrich on his intervention in Libya deal.
Is what Obama actually done wrong, comparable with what Bush did, or otherwise contrary to Obama’s campaign principles? Or is this, at most, a refinement of a position over a minor point some 2+ years later – and a refinement toward a position that he also stated on the campaign trail? I mean, if this is the worst we can come up with on a politician, we are truly blessed.
And you’re still trolling us Cole. You soooo aren’t this stupid.
ACS
@Bob Loblaw: Lots of people cared about signing statements back in 2004, and lots of people, myself included, blasted Bush for using them in a way that’s unconstitutional.
If there’s really a constitutional problem with the bill, take it to court. If there’s a time problem, that’s what preliminary injunctions are for. There isn’t any excuse for ignoring laws you don’t like, if that’s in fact what Obama is doing here.
OzoneR
@Zifnab:
signing statements are usually done in scenarios when the President doesn’t want a law held up in courts for an extended period of time, or something else he wants in the bill would be at risk of getting struck down as well.
This is in the budget bill.
Corner Stone
@Kane:
Jeebus cracker. After GWB, what’s left to broaden the powers of the Executive?
ACS
@joe from Lowell:
Ah, that’s a more reasonable defense. There’s still a good constitutional argument against signing statements in general, but if Obama has only used 12, that’s a big point in his favor since it implies he’s doing it in good faith.
Zifnab
@Omnes Omnibus:
Oh please. That’s so much legalese happy talk.
You’re just waving away the root Constitutionality problem and saying “Obama’s statements are right because Obama is right, and Bush’s statements were wrong because Bush was wrong.”
The executive branch doesn’t get to declare the Constitutionality of its own actions. We have a SCOTUS for that. And the core Constitutional issue behind signing statements are their complete side-stepping of the branch of government that DECIDES CONSTITUTIONALITY.
joe from Lowell
@Bob Loblaw:
Correct. However, between 2004 and 2008, it made a lot of sense to care about signing statements, because in terms of both numbers and the scope of the “interpretations” being asserted, Bush’s amplifier went to eleven.
Baud
Okay, the video says, “We are not going to use signing statements to do an end run around Congress.” I don’t think that needs to be interpreted as “No signing statements ever,” especially given Obama’s written responses to specific questions in which he stated:
Presidents generally have the right to decline to enforce laws that they conclude are not constitutional, but because there is no clear legal limit, Presidents prior to W. have typically acted with some discretion in exercising that power. Obama’s policy is to return to the pre-Bush era.
The courts generally do not get involved in constitutional disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches, so, no, Obama can’t simply ask the courts to decide whether statutory restrictions he thinks are unconstitutional are in fact so. The courts typically only get involved when a private party’s rights are implicated. In this case, the statute at issue sought to restrict pay to Executive Branch advisers (“czars”), so there are unlikely to be any private parties who could bring a court action.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
Leave Barack alone!!
(BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW)
MattR
@Omnes Omnibus:
I don’t understand that distinction. Regardless of why he was doing it, Obama basically was twisting that portion of the legislation into something it was not.
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
That’s not how the federal courts work. You actually need a case. Someone would need to sue Obama, or some other executive-branch entity, for violating the law in order to get the legislation in front of a judge.
Zifnab
@OzoneR: Assuming there’s a sever-ability clause, the rest of the budget will remain standing. And even without a sever-ability clause, I believe judges can exempt particular sections of law without striking down the entire budget.
If the budget did get struck down whole-sale, however, that’s a problem with how the Congress wrote the legislation. The President doesn’t get to line-item veto bills because its convenient.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Bob Loblaw: This.
Zifnab
@joe from Lowell: In this case, Obama would be the one suing, since he’s the one who wants to spend money to hire counsel.
Lolis
I don’t really care. Also, too.
ACS
@joe from Lowell: “That’s not how the federal courts work. You actually need a case. Someone would need to sue Obama, or some other executive-branch entity, for violating the law in order to get the legislation in front of a judge.”
That’s not true, Obama can challenge the law himself, provided he has standing, which he clearly would.
Omnes Omnibus
@Zifnab:Don’t be a fucking idiot. First, not every question of legality and Constitutionality is taken to the courts. Second, Congress and the President have an independent duty to interpret the Constitution and follow it and other laws. Absent a decision a court, they make their own best judgments. Third, if there ever is a place for “legalese happy talk,” or what others would call legal reasoning, it is in the interpretation of laws and legal process.
joe from Lowell
@ACS:
You can’t take a bill to court. What’s the case – Obama vs. Congress? Obama vs. HR 1234?
The way for this to end up in front of a judge is for someone to sue Obama for not complying with the law.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@Corner Stone:
.
.
You may say that I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.
.
.
FelixO
“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress”.
Note that he didn’t say that he wasn’t going to use signing statements at all, under any circumstances. And his response to the Boston Globe questionnaire makes it clear that he does think that signing statements are acceptable and have a useful purpose.
There’s enough wiggle room here to make a reasonable argument that this isn’t a flip flop. All you have to do is to allow that his response in the video clip wasn’t a full response to the question.
Anyway, the de-funding of these so called “czar” positions is a ridiculous Republican political stunt, and probably is unconstitutional. They certainly had no problem with any of W.’s “czars”.
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
Sure it does. It does so all the time. Every time the DoJ goes to court to defend a case in which it is being accused of violating the Constitution, the executive branch is declaring the constitutionality of its own actions.
It just doesn’t get to have the last word.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: This.
existentialfish
You’re ignoring the other quotes, Cole, that were clearly linked within the thread, including the in depth interview CANDIDATE Obama gave.
Why did Obama say that? Because signing statements were notorious not because of Bush standing for something non controversial, but used as a means of advancing the unitary executive. That’s NOT what Obama is doing here (even if he is doing that elsewhere).
Why did CANDIDATE Obama say some signing statements were OK Cole? You can bash your head against the wall or you can just answer the question.
BTW, signing statements are nothing official: they are JUST statements of Constitutional interpretation. Congress does the same thing all the time, just in the bill. There’s no inherent weight to the signing statement, it’s just an explanation.
Would you prefer Obama just ignore the unconstitutional part of the bill? Should he have vetoed the bill? Should he veto any bill he thinks a part of which may be unconstitutional? Should the executive enforce unconstitutional laws? Remember, the President swears an oath to the Constitution, not to you, me, or Congress.
You’re a smart guy, you can grapple with these issues. Congress wants to limit NOT how MUCH he can pay people for advice, but rather FROM WHOM that advice may be solicited. That’s all that’s going on here. Should the government shut down over this?
If you really think any President in the history of the Union would ever or will ever refuse to find a part of a passed bill unconstitutional, you’re living in a dream land. What we need to fight for is that the vision of the Constitution within it is right. And this is so right as to be basically banal.
existentialfish
You’re ignoring the other quotes, Cole, that were clearly linked within the thread, including the in depth interview CANDIDATE Obama gave.
Why did Obama say that? Because signing statements were notorious not because of Bush standing for something non controversial, but used as a means of advancing the unitary executive. That’s NOT what Obama is doing here (even if he is doing that elsewhere).
Why did CANDIDATE Obama say some signing statements were OK Cole? You can bash your head against the wall or you can just answer the question.
BTW, signing statements are nothing official: they are JUST statements of Constitutional interpretation. Congress does the same thing all the time, just in the bill. There’s no inherent weight to the signing statement, it’s just an explanation.
Would you prefer Obama just ignore the unconstitutional part of the bill? Should he have vetoed the bill? Should he veto any bill he thinks a part of which may be unconstitutional? Should the executive enforce unconstitutional laws? Remember, the President swears an oath to the Constitution, not to you, me, or Congress.
You’re a smart guy, you can grapple with these issues. Congress wants to limit NOT how MUCH he can pay people for advice, but rather FROM WHOM that advice may be solicited. That’s all that’s going on here. Should the government shut down over this?
If you really think any President in the history of the Union would ever or will ever refuse to find a part of a passed bill unconstitutional, you’re living in a dream land. What we need to fight for is that the vision of the Constitution within it is right. And this is so right as to be basically banal.
IM
@joe from Lowell:
Why not? The administration can’t just sue against a law they deem unconstitutional?
Or a “czar” could sue?
cat48
ACS
@joe from Lowell: Yes, you can challenge the constitutionality of a law without violating it. All you need is standing under Article III.
I don’t have time to dig up cases, but this has happened plenty of times before. One example just off the top of my head is U.S. v. Nixon, back when Nixon challenged the subpoena authority of the Watergate hearings. He didn’t have to violate the subpeona and go to jail to challenge it.
existentialfish
@joe from Lowell:
Only a Congressman would have standing I think. And who would they sue? Bachmann v. Obama? It’d never go anywhere.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
/yawn
snore city Cole.
lol
@Baud:
I still haven’t seen anyone address the distinction he made there.
Zifnab
@Omnes Omnibus:
Lulwhut? Any question of legality and Constitutionality that isn’t purely academic typically is. Or perhaps you missed the dozens of SCOTUS decisions handed out in the wake of the Bush Admin’s post-9/11 bullshit.
Only to a point. A cop can choose to arrest you in the field if he thinks you’re violating the law. But he doesn’t get to hold you indefinitely without a court weighing in. Likewise, Congress and the President are free to interpret at their leisure. But they’re also expected to challenge each other in disagreement and seek a third-party authorial decision from judiciary if they are in full dispute.
It would be impossible to adhere to the law if the Congress got to write it, the President got to interpret it, and the Judiciary got to rule on it wholly independently of one another. Eventually, you’ve got to have a consensus. Otherwise, you’re forced to follow three different sets of laws, which haven’t even been properly codified.
joe from Lowell
@ACS:
Who would he sue?
And if this method you propose is actually the way that presidents challenge laws in the federal courts, could you please show me a comparable case?
OzoneR
@Zifnab:
They can, doesn’t mean they will. Typically in this scenario they place an injunction on the whole bill, which means no budget.
Also, as Joe said, it’s very uncommon and rather bizarre for the DOJ to sue on the constitutionality of a bill that the President has just signed. That may be enough of an argument for having a DOJ case thrown out. Someone else would have to sue the entire government, including the administration, to get it in court.
He would have to veto the whole bill and have it overridden for him to sue on legit grounds.
Baud
@IM: No, if the President asked the courts to simply declare a law unconstitutional, the courts would throw the case out.
Theoretically, a czar could sue if his or her employment or salary were affected by the statute. But since Obama is not going to enforce the statutory pay restriction, no czar has been “injured” by the statute and court will only here a case brought by someone who has been injured.
Zifnab
@joe from Lowell:
Right. Which is why I’m fine with Obama not firing all his councilors on the spot. I just want to see him challenge the law in court rather than penning a signing statement and waving the issue away.
joe from Lowell
@IM:
Who would they sue?
Look at all the cases in which laws were deemed unconstitutional. You won’t find any in which the president sued Congress over passing a bill.
4jkb4ia
NO, John. That video just said the same thing as the questionnaire that was posted yesterday. The only thing that the Republicans accomplished with that rider was to say, “You can’t call these people head of the WH Office of Health Reform or whatever, but we can’t tell you not to call them advisors to the president and pay their salary.” Which they can’t because the executive branch is independent and all.
Something more like what Bush was doing and what Obama was talking about would be if Congress passed a law saying that Obama cannot keep troops in Libya, again ancient topic, and Obama said, “I don’t have to obey this because you are encroaching on my commander-in-chief power”. This is not about the names that people are called but about what powers Congress and the President properly have. The Bush admin M.O. was to use that commander-in-chief power to trump powers that, outside of Yoo and Addington, there was not much debate that Congress had. That’s one meaning of construing the legislation to do what you want. I think Obama does have one signing statement where he said, “This law goes up to the limit of executive power which I reserve”.
So the difference is between saying “This is unconstitutional, I reject it” and “I accept it because my notion of executive power allows me to reject what Congress really meant to say”.
(Shouts into the ether. The stove is turning out to be easier than expected. It must be a matter of the right tool. Soon there will be the dreaded oven, which doesn’t self-clean)
Zifnab
@joe from Lowell:
Congress, most likely.
existentialfish
BTW, Cole, what do you mean by “can Congress address signing statements.” Of course they can’t. Signing statements are only Presidential views on the Constitutionality of what is within the bill. And while the Supreme Court has the final say on matters that go before them, not all Constitutional issues are resolved by them – hell there are some they outright refuse to hear.
That’s why Congress and the President regularly weigh in on things. Presidential history and Congressional history matter. The view of Congress within a bill matters. The view of a President signing a bill matters.
The Bush executive power theory was bad, but what you’re trying to do is outlawing the President from ever finding any existing legislation unconstitutional.
Riddle me this: what’s the difference between this signing statement and the DOJ deciding not to defend DOMA. Both find a part of an existing signed law unconstitutional. This goes marginally farther in not enforcing the provision wholly, but that’s meaningless. If Congress overrid Obama’s veto with something patently unconstitutional, he’d be well within his Constitutional rights to not enforce it – indeed he’d be expected not to! That’s all that’s happening hear: the price of needed legislation was Congress insisting on an unconstitutional clause, which Obama decided not to enforce. This is regular and OK.
Jan
Giving it very little thought,in no particular order, I come up with these flip-flops:
FISA vote (will fillibuster it; no, but will vote against it; voted for it)
Repeal Patriot Act (still no right of Habeous Corpus)
End torture (Wikileaks private)
Send children to public school (Sidwell Friends)
Close Guantanimo
Leave Irag
Leave Afghanistan
Will get shelter dog
What am I leaving out? Why is the signing statement flip-flop such a big deal and so unexpected?
Nellcote
As president, Prez Obama’s higher duty is to the Constitution above campaign promises.
Here’s his signing statement memorandum from March 09.
whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-on-Presidential-Signing-Statements
IM
@Baud:
Well, the president is injured. His authority to determine personnel in his administration is restricted.
But perhaps your system of constitutional review is just outdated.
ACS
@joe from Lowell: As for who he would sue, I’m not sure off the top of my head exactly what the caption would look like, but if nothing else he could probably file a declaratory judgment.
Just thinking on the fly here, it might be something like the secretary of the treasury, or whoever would be responsible for refusing to turn over the funds in dispute. (yes, it would be weird for him to sue another executive branch official to declare a congressional action unconstitutional, but that might be how it would work.)
Corner Stone
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: Uncle Clarence Thomas, I feel Motley Crue is more appropriate here than Lil Johnny Lennon.
“You know I’m a dreamer
But my heart’s of gold
I had to run away high
So I wouldn’t come home low
Just when things went right
Doesn’t mean they were always wrong
Just take this song and you’ll never feel
Left all alone”
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
Good goddess, you people. I suppose if a front-pager said that Obama is bad at bowling we’d also get a 500 comment thread of arguments that no, he’s really the best in the world and that video of his bad game during the campaign was altered, or he took a dive, or the ball was sabotaged, or the owner of the lane was Republican, or gremlins from Dimension Z interfered, or something, anything besides admitting that Obama is but a man, not a demigod.
Fucksake, this is just about the mildest, most inconsequential criticism of the President I can imagine, but you’ve got people in the thread acting like Cole just called for impeachment, to be followed by burning at the stake.
I think Obama can handle this criticism just fine. He’s a strong guy. He doesn’t need any purity police working to make sure everyone knows he’s the latest incarnation of the Buddha.
If Cole is trolling you morons, it’s because you make is so damn easy.
existentialfish
The real irony is that this was all decided in Marbury v. Madison. If Cole would just wake up, he’d realize the GOP is in practice overturning the most fundamental decision in the history of the country.
But no, he can’t because Obama had the gall to say so in a written statement!
Heavens me, I’ve got the vapors, a constitutional lawyer said something about the Constitution!!
A first year law student can see how how destructive that rider was. Congress has the power of the purse, not the power to designate in what capacity Obama can solicit advice.
What should Obama have done, fire his czars and file a brief in district court? If Congress thinks they’re right, let them do the legwork.
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
That’s not the way the courts work. Presidents don’t sue laws. People sue the president, or the government, for violating the law, or for implementing the law in a way that violates the constitution.
Baud
@IM: But he is not a private party. When the Executive Branch, through DOJ, files suit, it is on behalf of the “United States.” Presidents do not sue to vindicate their own authority vis a vis Congress, and no court would hear such a case unless a private party’s interests were implicated in some way.
Anya
@IM: Comment #4 first one to bring the douchebag’s name.
kay
@lol:
It’s enough for me, further, I don’t know why we’d rely on one statement and exclude the other, more detailed statement on the same issue. I think you have to exclude both or take them together.
A person can still object to signing statements when excluding both, but they can’t pick and choose statements to make the flip flop charge.
existentialfish
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire:
There’s plenty of weak areas of Obama. Plenty of areas I’m disappointed in. This is the farthest from them I can imagine, and that’s why I’m expending energy.
If we’re going to criticize Obama, let’s do it right. This is nonsense.
existentialfish
@kay:
Exactly.
joe from Lowell
@ACS:
It would be thrown out as not “ripe” – yes, that’s an actual legal doctrine – because the injured party (POTUS) has a very obvious, available means of addressing the harm (sending a memo to Tim Geithner ordering him to provide the funds, and bring him a coffee while he’s at it).
FlipYrWhig
Is the issue with signing statements the signing statement itself, or is it the use of a signing statement to justify ignoring a law? IIRC when the whole brouhaha was a-brewin’ about Bush’s signing statements, the neutral perspective on the idea was that issuing one provides part of the paper trail for any subsequent adjudication of the law in the courts.
So the issue back then wasn’t “signing statements are bad,” it was “using signing statements habitually to defend the notion of the unitary executive and the principle that the president has powers that cannot be abridged is bad.”
This case seems to be a rather legitimate separation-of-powers dispute. Bush’s seemed to me to be illegitimate separation-of-powers disputes, such as the idea that the president’s powers as commander in chief of the armed forces could never be restricted.
So, maybe it is a reversal, from the narrow perspective that signing statements should not be used to extend, or try to extend, executive branch power when the legislature seeks to check it. On the other hand, my view is that candidates always want to talk about things presidents ought not do, but as presidents they get much more interested in the things presidents could do.
So I guess chalk me up as thinking it’s something of a reversal, but nothing terribly untoward or calamitous.
ACS
@Baud: Uh, Presidents sue to vindicate their own authority all the time. U.S. v. Nixon, which I mentioned above, is a good example off the top of my head. Are you and joe from Lowell seriously suggesting that the President can’t challenge the constitutionality of a law that applies to him and his staff?
Martin
@ACS: You’re making this entirely too black and white. Bush used a signing statement to completely invalidate a law that the GOP was championing. Obama is using a signing statement to say ‘Congress wasn’t given the authority to confirm these staffers and they cannot do an end-run around that by specifically defunding them’. Obama didn’t say ‘I won’t cut the funding’, he just said that Congress isn’t empowered to tell the White House where they spend every penny – and they aren’t.
The entire budget didn’t need to be vetoed over that issue. Ideologically that might be super pure, but if we held to that standard the government would shut down and never reopen because procedurally it’s absurd, and everyone realizes that.
Svensker
Yer trolling yer own blog, Cole. I mean, look at the tag you put on this thing. Jeez.
Omnes Omnibus
@Zifnab:A signing statement as written by Obama in this case says this is my interpretation of the law. If anyone is to sue over it, it should be Congress.
There are literally millions of disagreements between the executive and legislative branches during the course of a year. All of them do not result in lawsuits. You are barking up the wrong tree here.
Further, we aren’t talking about an arrest here. We are talking about statutory interpretation, Absent a court ruling to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the executive interpreting a law in a way that it sees as beneficial and correct. US courts don’t issue advisory opinions, so again, if Congress has a problem with the president’s interpretation of the law, it needs to take action. It could got to court or it could pass amend the law to preclude the executive’s interpretation.
joe from Lowell
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: I’ve read your comment through three times, and I can’t find the part where you provide any argument for why your position is right, and mine wrong, except its favorability towards Obama.
And that’s a really lousy way for you to make up your mind about an issue.
“You can’t be right, because your argument rejects a criticism of Obama. Oh, btw, you’re basing your opinion on whether an argument is a criticism of Obama.”
Er, thank you for that.
ACS
@joe from Lowell: I’m familiar with ripeness and the other doctrines of standing. I don’t see why that would make a difference. For one thing, declaratory judgments are meant to avoid ripeness problems. For another, there are lots of exceptions to the doctrine. Finally, it would be ripe at some point, it’s not like there would never be a situation where there was a genuine dispute over the law.
joe from Lowell
@kay:
Because someone said “we” were wrong, and “we” is – um, are – really, really determined to prove that “we” were not, you meanies.
Fred
Thanks for posting this follow up John, confirming your first post was in fact a troll post. I guess you’re feeling a bit needy of attention now that that brief spotlight K-Thug gave you is fading.
IM
@Baud:
Obama/Office of the president v. US. One represented by the counsel of the president, the other by the DoJ.
Baud
@ACS: If I recall correctly, Nixon didn’t sue in U.S. v. Nixon; it was the special prosecutor who sought a subpoena.
You should read Raines v. Byrd, which involves the line-item veto. The Supreme Court made clear that courts are not going to hear inter-Branch disputes:
Stillwater
@kay: But isn’t the issue (which Cole brought up yesterday) that Obama initially agreed to the now excised provision in the budget agreement? The GOP thought they had that included, Obama then uses signing statements to rescind what he and Congress agreed to.
Libby
Sorry John Cole. Using one minute of video from a campaign stop seems kind of Breitbartish and context matters. He didn’t actually say he would NEVER use a signing statement. He specifically made that statement in the video in the context of Bush’s abuse of the process. His further qualifications is other forums count. If you’re interested my long form rebuttal is here. I mention you in it, since I was so surprised you’re taking this position.
BOSS B*TCH
“Someone is wrong on the internet.”
ACS
@Martin: If you are right and the statement is just a declaration, that wouldn’t be a problem. But the issue with signing statements is when they are used to “interpret” a law so it only includes the parts the pres likes. That’s what I gathered that Obama was doing from the article. If that’s not what he’s doing, I have no problem with it.
Stillwater
@Svensker: Yer trolling yer own blog, Cole.
Keeps us occupied till the next Sully take down.
Joel
Man, I missed another blog fight?
joe from Lowell
@ACS:
Yes, we are, and we are correct.
A subpoena is not a law. Once again, you will not find any cases of a law’s constitutionality being challenged the way you describe. That’s not how our system works.
kay
@existentialfish:
That’s the date on the detailed response to the newspaper.
The memo is from 2009, that’s after the initial promise, so I wouldn’t rely on that for flip-flopping purposes.
But you have to take both statements together if they were both pre-election, and they’re on the same issue, and one is just more detailed than the other. That’s just basic fairness. Why use one and not the other?
BOSS B*TCH
Why is one statement more valid than the other? because it proves you right?
IM
What about this?
If a president can challenge a subpoena, why not a law?
lol
@Jan:
FISA vote (will fillibuster it; no, but will vote against it; voted for it)
Voted for a compromise version that ended warrantless wiretapping.
Repeal Patriot Act (still no right of Habeous Corpus)
“As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”
End torture (Wikileaks private)
Sorry, but solitary confinement isn’t torture.
Send children to public school (Sidwell Friends)
[citation needed]
Close Guantanimo
He tried and every Democrat from Bernie Sander and Russ Feingold to Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer stopped him.
Leave Irag
I don’t if you noticed but we’re well on our way out of Iraq.
Leave Afghanistan
[citation needed]
Will get shelter dog
Technically true, but the dog they did get was about to be given up by its family.
Pretty weak tea for a list of “flip flops”.
seabe
Ahem:
nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/04/you-do-realize-that-this-wasnt-obamas.html
Peter
Holy balls, who cares?
IM
I wanted to link to Nixon v. Us.
joe from Lowell
@ACS:
The reason declaratory judgments are issued before ripeness, and the reason there are exceptions, is to avoid imminent harm that would occur before the case becomes ripe. Since the harm can be avoided entirely with a simple action, or even inaction, of the president, neither of these arguments applies here.
This is correct – if someone is harmed by the application of the law, like one of the czars, they can sue. If someone is harmed by the President’s ignoring of the law – like Congress, feeling that their prerogatives have been trod upon, they can sue the United States or the President. As I said, this can certainly end up in front of the courts.
Baud
@IM: Because a subpoena is issued under authority of a court, so the courts are already involved and presidential “self help” in that context would mean that the President could ignore judicial authority. Allowing a president to challenge a statute direct would draw the courts into inter-Branch disputes, which courts try to avoid.
ACS
@Baud: Hmm, you may be right that the President couldn’t challenge it directly, though I’m not 100% sure without doing some more research. But couldn’t one of the czars challenge it on the basis of him not getting his paycheck? I mean, that’s basically the sort of thing that happened in Marbury v. Madison, where the judge sued to get his commission from the prez.
I just really seriously doubt that there’s no way for someone to have standing to challenge a congressional appropriation or lack thereof which affects them.
kay
@Stillwater:
I don’t know if that’s the issue.
I though this was the issue, because this is what I just read:
He clearly made two statements on this (at least, I assume), because I listened to one and read the other. All I’m saying is you can’t pick and choose your statements on signing statements:)
He said both things, same issue, same topic. If I take them together, it’s not a flip flop. If I use one and not the other, it is.
Why would I rely on one and exclude the onther that goes against the interpretation I favor? That hardly seems fair.
Baud
@ACS:
I addressed that here, but the short answer is yes.
ACS
@joe from Lowell: “If someone is harmed by the President’s ignoring of the law – like Congress, feeling that their prerogatives have been trod upon, they can sue the United States or the President. As I said, this can certainly end up in front of the courts.”
Ok, then I think we’re probably arguing about technicalities. It’s an interesting procedural question though.
Stillwater
@kay: I think there’s some level of shenanigans here, whether it’s a campaign trail flop-flop or typical policy level trickery. But I think either way, his use of signing statements violates the spirit of what Obama was saying in the campaign trail.
ACS
@Baud: Ah, OK. Interesting procedural question, like I said, but I think the bottom line here is that there’s a still a legal remedy through the courts, which was the whole genesis of this discussion, IIRC.
joe from Lowell
Also, too, in Nixon vs. US, the subpoena wasn’t issued by Congress, but by an executive branch official, and Nixon didn’t sue Congress, but the executive branch.
homeruk
Has anyone here actually read the signing statement and the relevant provisions of the law referred to in the statement (as opposed to the abc news article). Both documents readily available from White House site. Seems clear to me that the statement relating to the Gitmo provisions is that he’ll work with congress to overturn those provisions. On the section 2262 point, that section refers to four specific job roles that aren’t to be funded – not to czars more generally. I read the statement as saying that that provision would not be interpreted so as to constitute a general restriction on the President’s ability to seek advice from within his administration.
A question – if congress doesn’t authorise a particular appropriation – eg for the salaries of these roles – how in practice can President Obama do an “end run” around that? Pay them out of his own pocket? Or just get that position paid for by the dnc?
kay
@Stillwater:
My personal opinion is that “the GOP” (read: Fox News and various allies) made such a ridiculous lying fuss over what are presidential advisers that they had to placate their base and include this nonsense, or admit they’d been flat-out lying for two years.
But, as I said, if you object to signing statements you object to signing statements. Fine. I just don’t think Obama made a definitive statement against all signing statements, taking his words together.
joe from Lowell
@ACS: Indeed, this is an interesting question.
You know, I could see how the practice of the president suing Congress, or somebody, to avoid implementing a law he deems unconstitutional could be part of how our system works, although there are probably all sorts of complications that I haven’t thought of.
It just isn’t, as of yet.
Yutsano
@Svensker: Yep. Got the popcorn all hawt and ready.
Baud
@ACS: Fair enough. I suppose Obama could have enforced the pay restrictions in the budget bill and asked the people he was forced to fire to file suit, but that, to me, seems far more unseemly than the signing statement approach. (It still would not be a slam dunk that the courts would hear the case; since “czars” serve at the pleasure of the President, the courts may say that they have no valid claim.)
kay
@Stillwater:
Okay. I can live with “the spirit”. I think if you’re gonna use his words on one specific topic you have to use all of them.
joe from Lowell
@homeruk:
Congress doesn’t have to specifically authorize funding for individual staff positions at the White House. They just provide a staffing budget.
I suppose Congress could refuse to provide funds to staff the White House entirely.
Anya
It’s strange how the same people who were screaming for the President to overturn DADT by an EO, are now objecting because he refused to comply with unconstitutional provision from a bunch of partisan douchebags who are trying to undermine his agenda.
@Jan:
I will give you that FISA and the Repeal Patriot Act are both egregiously wrong decisions and I will not excuse it. But the rest of your list contains bunch of silly examples (his kids school and the dog. Seriously), misrepresentation (Iraq, Afghanistan). As well as a lie (Guantanimo), since it was the cowards in Congress that prevented the closure of Guantanimo. Did your congress person vote for the bill prevented the president from using any funds to transfare Gauntanimo detainees to other prisons? If so, did you call and object?
eemom
@RinaX:
To the extent the word “standard” is properly used to apply to a petty, pissy, “gotcha” of a post, I agree with you.
Yesterday’s post at least purported to raise the substantive issues regarding signing statements for discussion, such that people rightly pointed out that when FACTS, and CONTEXT, were considered, there wasn’t actually a flip-flop at all.
That done, Cole today resorts to the
Hamsheresqueinfantile tactic of extracting a sentence from a fucking CAMPAIGN speech for no other reason than to say, in essence, “See? See? I was RIGHT. Technically it’s a flip flop.”Impressive.
joe from Lowell
Also, if you’re going to include text in your feed so the viewing audience can see the date, writing “Today” is really effing stupid.
Corner Stone
@lol:
Any time someone uses “robust” I start patting my pockets to make sure my wallet is still there.
IM
I have to admit that the archaic system of constitutional review almost forces the president to use a signing statement in this situations.
eemom
@Stillwater:
that statement is positively lawyerly in its fact-obscuring hyperbole. Well done!
benintn
John, this is not what you think it is. Obama said he will not “use signing statements to get his way”. He is abiding by that – abiding by the law, while expressing clearly his reservations about the Congressional decision to overreach and cross the line (in this particular case) into Executive Branch authority.
BOSS B*TCH
@seabe:
duh! he just gave a great speech in defense of the liberal agenda and we need something new to be pissed off about.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@Corner Stone:
.
.
Very well. You leave me no choice but to counter with an excerpt from “Wide Wide River” by the Fugs –
River of shit,
River of shit,
Flow on, flow on, river of shit,
Right from my toes,
On up to my nose,
Flow on, flow on, river of shit.
I’ve been swimming In this river of shit,
More than 20 years, and I’m getting tired of it,
Don’t like swimming, hope it’ll soon run dry,
Got to go on swimming, cause I don’t want to die.
Who dealt this mess, anyway?
Yeah, that’s an old card player’s term,
but sometimes you can use the old switcheroo and it can be applied to …
Frontal politics
What I mean is …
Who was it that set up a system,
supposedly democratic system,
Where you end up always voting for the lesser of two evils?
I mean, Was George Washington the lesser of two evils?
Sometimes I wonder …
You got some guy that says
“For God sake, we’ve got to stop having violence in this country.”
While he’s spending 16,000 dollars a second snuffing gooks*.
* Remember to update for 2011’s Democratic President Obama.
.
.
benintn
In fact, having now watched the entire video, John, I’m absolutely clear that what Obama was saying (and still is saying today) is that he will not violate the Constitutional separation of powers by using signing statements that interpret and enact/enforce laws in ways that suit him. In fact, Obama is protecting the constitution here by saying, “Congress, this thing about “Czars” is a clear overreach by you. I am completely within my presidential executive authority to bring qualified employees to address specific priorities of my administration, and without any Congressional approval.
You can disagree about this, but I think Obama’s exactly right on the Constitutional question.
Martin
@ACS: Well, he’s saying ‘I agree with the funding cuts, but Congress has no standing to tell me where to apply them. The President has the authority to hire advisors without Congressional confirmation so long as the budget permits.’
I don’t see a problem with that statement at all, and I do see a problem with Congress overreaching in this situation.
Death Panel Truck
This thread is inane. Liberals fiddle while conservatives burn the country to the ground.
joe from Lowell
The question Obama was asked referred to using signing statements “to get your way.”
He then goes on to denounce Bush for thinking he can “make laws as he goes along,” and says he will not “use signing statements to do an end-run around Congress.”
This is not, however much “we” might wish it, a statement that he will not use signing statements. Indeed, Obama stated numerous times during the campaign that he thought there were legitimate uses of signing statements. This is an argument against using signing statements to claim that Congress passed a law it did not pass, giving the president authority it did not give him.
He’s quite specific in describing his criticism of Bush’s signing statements – that he uses them to create law, to claim Congressional authorization for something Congress never authorized. In other words, its an affirmative use of signing statements, in the sense of adding onto Congress’s legislation, as opposed to a negative use of signing statements, to remove or ignore something that Congress included in its legislation. In other words, exactly the opposite of make law.
Stillwater
@eemom: I was waiting for one a you pros to RECOGNIZE!
mclaren
Cole’s trolling everyone big-time. He sez:
Yeah, and candidate Obama said very clearly that he wouldn’t go for mandates in an HCR bill. Then he signed an HCR bill with mandates in ’em.
Candidate Obama said he believed we needed to get the hell out of Iraq, and here we are with more U.S. military personnel in Iraq than when Bush was presnit. The only difference is that today we have less U.S. army troops and more Xe (Blackwater) mercs than in 2007.
Candidate Obama said he wouldn’t sign an HCR bill without a public option. Then he signed an HCR bill without a public option.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Obama constantly does the opposite of what he says.
This seems difficult for many of you to grasp. Ever been around a three-year-old kid? The kid will grab a cookie and then if you ask him, “Hey, I told you not to eat any cookies,” the kid will say “But I didn’t eat a cookie.”
Obama’s exactly the same.
joe from Lowell
@eemom:
To be fair, the same can be said of Obama’s answer in this clip. It’s well within the realm of possibility for someone to watch that and think he was ruling out signing statements entirely, especially the way he said “Yes,” with a period after it, and took a drink of water as the crowd applauded, before explaining what he meant.
BOSS BITCH
@Death Panel Truck:
Amen.
Stillwater
@eemom: Btw, Joe’s quote here
only supports my lawyerly torture of normal English: During the negotiotions he agreed to the specific cuts the GOP proposed, then used a signing statement to ‘get his way”.
ETA: Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
…and if you pretend “get his way” means exactly the opposite of what Obama said, you can convince yourself that your statement is true.
4jkb4ia
@eemom:
As has been pointed out multiple times, the sentence didn’t mean what John wanted it to. But he quoted the whole question and answer.
(Frustration has set in with stove)
johnny walker
Well I was going to remind John that this was only a campaign statement and therefore doesn’t count, etc. but that seems to have been covered. Anything I could say about the inanity of trying to defend this has already been covered.
So really, I’ll just say this: the knee-jerk Obama defenders would absolutely love to make this all about whether or not this particular signing statement is problematic. That’s all well and good, but this isn’t even close to the first signing statement made by Obama. Don’t get distracted.
@Death Panel Truck: It isn’t as though bitching in this thread is preventing us from going out and individually stopping the fat-right* agenda. BJ comment** drones really are not that important, despite frequent misconceptions to the contrary.
*originally a typo, but I say it stays
**This drives me nuts: commentors? commentators? anyone know what the proper word is?
joe from Lowell
Prediction: if John wades into this thread, he will denounce the explanation of what Obama was saying on the ground that:
1) it is an explanation, with words, discussing meaning, and
2) it rebuts a criticism of Obama.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: He agreed to it, then signed it away. End of story, really. All the discussion about whether it’s consistent with his campaign talk is entirely besides the point I’m making.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater: You’re right, you were making a different point than I thought.
And, you’re right, he totally did that, didn’t he?
johnny walker
@eemom: Are you suggesting that there’s somewhere other than the campaign that people can refer back to in order to find him making concrete statements on the issue? This line of argumentation really confuses me. Are we only allowed to evaluate him based on things he said once he got elected?
The issue is not when he said the thing he’s now contradicting, it’s that he said it. If you want to play the “nothing he said on the campaign counts” game that’s your thing, but why you would expect that to be convincing to anyone else is beyond me.
It’s not that I’m shocked to find politicians lying — it’s that I don’t believe in giving them a pass merely because it’s common. When Obama starts acting like a typical politician, maybe I’m just the crazy one here but my response is not to go, “Oh, that makes that behavior ok then!”
Elia Isquire
The majority of the commenters of this blog is clearly ready to see how stupid and idiotic criticism like this is. But the decadent firebaggers, in their enclaves at Salon and GOS is not dead–and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.
Omnes Omnibus
I regret getting out of the boat on this troll post. I will try to do better next time.
johnny walker
Also, maybe someone can explain how a signing statement that isn’t about the President “getting his way” would work. Are there Presidential signing statements that instead reflect the will of Congress? Who else gets to share the signing statement pen?
Pretty crazy — here I thought that power was granted exclusively to the President.
@CT Voter: So when the President answers the same question differently depending on the circumstances and who he’s talking to, this is evidence of consistency?
Nah man he didn’t flip flop — he just laid it out so that whatever he ends up doing is consistent with *something* he previously said! Wild!
El Tiburon
This sure seems like an odd picket to get your panties twisted on. Of all othe campaign promises made and so clearly broken by Obama, this surely rates rather low.
It is just one more arrow in the quiver for those of us who thought we were voting for a Hopenchangemobile, but ended up with a Retooled Bushdeville.
HRA
My apologies if this has been already written in the comments.
“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.”
Clearly, this is an attempt to usurp the powers of the executive branch. That is how I read it. Furthermore, it’s a slam at President Obama to gather political points. No one ever did this to former President Bush.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: Damn dude! I’m gonna book mark this page as the fist time you’ve ever agreed with me!
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@HRA:
.
.
Clearly, this is an attempt to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. That is how I read it.
.
.
Stillwater
@Omnes Omnibus: Never get out of the fucking boat!
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater: Yeah…well…shut up, bookmark-bagger!
;-P
Omnes Omnibus
@Stillwater: The sad thing is that I know better. I just failed at staying in.
ExistentialFish
@joe from Lowell:
To be brutally honest, what annoys me about your position and yours like you here (including Cole) is divorcing the process from the substance.
The process here is just finding something unconstitutional – it happens, literally, all the time within the executive branch. That’s what the DOJ and OPR and the White House counsel do.
Sometimes laws are passed parts of which that are unconstitutional. The high and mighty would have the President veto them. This is possible, but sometimes other considerations outweigh this, whether provincial (here) or by overriding a veto (think War Powers Resolution) or even by inheritance (say Bush and the GOP congress passed an unconstitutional provision Obama inherited). The President takes an oath to the Constitution.
What is the President supposed to do in such situations? The veto may work sometimes, but most scholars don’t agree with Greenwald that it works all the time. Presidents since the beginning have held a right (though not absolute) to interpret the Constitution.
I just don’t see what the alternative is. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutionality, they’re not the only one.
This “controversy” is solely a matter of getting upset at Obama for not laying out the reasonable footnotes in a broad campaign statement, footnotes that he in interviews went on to clarify.
Signing statements are not optimal, but in what world should the President not be able to interpret the Constitution at all? We’d still be enforcing DOMA, we’d have had to wait on integrating the military under Truman, we’d have to wait until a court heard every signle school case for desgregating.
The President swears to the Constitution, not to fealty to Congressional interpretation thereof.
RinaX
@eemom:
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I meant.
Fred
@RinaX:
Perhaps John would be better sticking with what he knows. Which would be when one of his pooches doesn’t want to go outside and do their business because it’s too cold.
WaterGirl
I find the “Readership Capture” tag on this post to be insulting, rather than amusing. It seems like a big f>>> you from Cole to his commenters.
Hyperion
@OzoneR wrote:
is this thread about Libya?
/snark
eemom
@Death Panel Truck:
That.
And in the case of Cole BFFs Greenwald and Hamsher, hand out the matches.
eemom
as long as we’re getting into the weeds here, technically this isn’t a troll post, because that is what yesterday’s was. This is more like a retroll.
Mary
@ACS:
Actually, the procedural posture in U.S. v. Nixon was extremely straightforward and was in no way a case of a President suing to vindicate his authority vis-a-vis the execution of legislation. Nixon didn’t file a claim against the U.S., he made a motion to quash a subpoena during an ongoing special investigation on the basis of executive privilege.
joe from Lowell
@ExistentialFish: I think you might have misunderstood me in that comment. I was saying that the President can’t challenge laws he thinks are unconstitutional by going to court. I was disputing someone who was saying that he shouldn’t issue signing statements, but rather go to court.
Cain
@Martin:
He’s totally trolling us. He and the pups hatched a plan under that blanket while it was raining. Since the day was ruined anyways thanks to the rain, he’s decided to have some sunshine by trying to blow smoke up ours. haha
I mean really.. what was the point of the whole “flip-flop” thing anyways? As you said, did he do something wrong? He’s basically doing the exact same thing he would have complained Greenwald or Hamsher would have done!
Stillwater
@eemom: No trollery at all. In fact, I think the case is worse than Cole is making: Obama made an explicit good-faith agreement with the GOP which he promptly rejected by appealing to Presidential prerogative. Whether his actions were legal or not, or consistent with his campaign promises or not, is a separate issue. Obama used devious means to trick the GOP into agreements he – apparently – had no intention of honoring.
ETA: And Imagonna vote for Big O. No ‘primary his ass’ from me.
geg6
Cole, tagging this as”readership capture” is totally not cricket, dude. Yeah, you get to troll your own blog, but do you really need to insult your readers in such a blatant way as you do here? I bet your mother taught you better than that.
And, personally, I don’t care what he said or didn’t say about signing statements. Those fuckers in Congress are trying to make it impossible to do his job. Fuck them. Which is pretty much what this says in a more legalistic and polite way. He’s right.
Joe Beese
1. Congress made him do it!
2. It depends what “is” is.
3. Greenwald!
4. LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
WaterGirl
I consulted the fine print in the BJ manual and confirmed that if our blog host is trolling us, we can (and may) consider it an open thread.
Has anyone seen a follow-up post from Keith G. to let us know how his kitty is doing?
Also, I have ordered my iPad and am wondering if anyone can recommend some good ipad apps.
@geg6: That’s what I tried to say earlier, but you said it better than I did. Thank you.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
Do we know this for certain, or are we assuming? Do we know that this language was part of the deal that was approved?
ETA: That is to say, was the entire language of the budget bill included in the negotiations?
cleek
still don’t care
joe from Lowell
@Joe Beese: Over-the-counter Ambien.
Yutsano
@cleek: cleek once again shows us all how to stay in the boat.
:: glares at OO ::
ppcli
@Omnes Omnibus: Yesterday, I asked a specific factual question about the law, and you gave a great, helpful answer, then got back in the boat. A couple of other people did too. At the end of that thread I felt I had learned some stuff and I felt smarter. I wish I hadn’t given in to the temptation to read this thread, because now I feel dumber. As if this thread is a kind of black hole of knowledge, drawing it out of my brain into oblivion.
60th Street
This certainly isn’t the candidate Cole I remember…
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: The agreement phase of our relationship was short lived. But fair enough. I do, however not withstanding albeit, think the burden is on Obama at this point to splain hisself.
Joseph Nobles
Cherry-picked Greenwaldian bullshit.
Odie Hugh Manatee
This boat has some great amenities but the service sucks. What is nice is that it’s not crowded because others are enjoying the swim in the muck.
John, you need some fresh troll bait. I mean, c’mon dude! I believe in recycling but this is just sad.
John Cole
I did dress her up a bit. But just the nose.
Stillwater
@Yutsano: In the captain of the Titanic sense, or more like a cockswain?
4jkb4ia
@WaterGirl:
Almost finished with stove.
Also too, Matt Kemp spoiled a beautiful performance by Chris Carpenter with a walkoff HR.
Lolis
@mclaren:
Newsflash: Every person on the fucking planet lies.
Omnes Omnibus
@Lolis: I don’t.
STUCKZILLA!
AWWSUM THRED! i aint thisrty ENOUGH TO DRINK FRUM THIS WELL OF STUPID. GIDDEEUP MUP
Omnes Omnibus
@ppcli: Thank you. I feel better, but I’m still kicking myself for getting out of the boat in this one. I knew it was trolling and I jumped right in anyway.
(N.B. If you do get out of the boat, don’t bother with nuance; pull out the flamethrower and start going nuts. Everyone is.)
Dave
“He broke a campaign promise” is the least persuasive of arguments against Obama’s use of a signing statement. Doing so confuses a procedural issue for a substantive one. Procedurally, the signing statement sucks, yes. But the prerogative is the president’s until someone else steps in.
Mike M
A few points on this largely overwrought discussion:
1. None of the positions mentioned in the rider are occupied. In other words, no one is currently being paid for those positions.
2. According to US law, the president has full authority to appoint advisors and set salaries for the executive office of the president without consulation with congress.
3. The constitution gives congress confirmation authority only for designated officers of the United States and not for “inferior” positions.
4. Congress can set the budget for the EOP, but it cannot use the budget to give it confirmation authority that it otherwise wouldn’t have and it cannot restrict the president’s ability to seek advice from anyone he wishes. They can reduce funding for the EOP, but they cannot choose to defund particular positions they don’t like.
5. Congress often passes these types of riders to express their displeasure or disagreement with presidential action, but with full knowledge that the riders will have no practical effect.
6. The media spotlights these issues without explaining to readers the constitutional or statutory issues involved.
7. If Obama had said nothing more about signing statements that what is in John’s video, then he could rightfully be accused to flip-flopping. However, before he was elected Obama explained his full nuanced position on signing statements in writing.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater: I was just asking. I don’t know if this could have slipped in under the radar during the negotiations, or not.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater: If this is so:
then it raises an interesting possibility: Obama is acting to protect his formal right to do something that, because of the budget deal, he has no intention of doing.
Let’s see if he actually fills any of these positions during the rest of the fiscal year.
WyldPirate
@BOSS B*TCH:
Great speeches don’t mean shit when you bargain with the Rethugs like you’re their bitch…
Omnes Omnibus
@WyldPirate: Are you this negative in meatspace or is this a persona you have adopt for commenting on blogs?
BOSS BITCH
@WyldPirate:
Its comments like these that make me even happier to have Obama in the White House. Thank you for confirming the priorities of the left.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell:
This has the whiff of plausibility to it. Gamesmanship – well played – on both sides (I mean the GOP and Obama, not you and me). But well played on your part as well.
WyldPirate
@Omnes Omnibus:
There isn’t a goddamned thing in this country to be positive about now. When that changes, I’ll change.
Stillwater
@WyldPirate: You’re not thrilled that the official US policy towards Libya is now regime change? WTF, man, nothin makes you happy.
D-Chance.
@Nick L: Just to recenter the debate: did Obama flip-flop as prez, or was he just a sloppy campaigner who didn’t use the requisite nuance in that particular instance?
Or, did he just say whatever the Hell he thought he needed to say to get the rubes to vote for him?
He said a lot of things as a campaigner (loved that “hope and change” bullshit), and has since become Bush’s Third Term.
BOSS BITCH
thread has officially hit rock bottom.
BOSS BITCH
@WyldPirate:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you’re silly.
STUCKZILLA!
@BOSS BITCH:
WHALE SHIT ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SEE.
CATCHME IF YOU CAN, EL NEKKID MOPPER
NOT THIS TIME.
bwaaaa hahahahah
Wolfdaughter
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire:
Sigh. SIGH. I get so tired of this over-the-top type of argument. Defending Obama does NOT mean that a person thinks he’s a demigod. That’s what some Republicans do vis-a-vis their politicians. And note that I’m not saying ALL Republicans.
If you look at the totality of what Obama said about signing statements, he didn’t say he would never use them. The Republicans tried to box him in. He has done what he considers to be the least disruptive thing to counter them. That’s all.
I criticize Obama for things like not restoring full habeas corpus, his handling of the Manning case (assuming the reports to be true). I’m on the fence about Libya.
Obama is human with human foibles. I wish all you PUMAs or however you style yourselves would give him credit for sometimes doing the right thing (like refusing to enforce DOMA). Criticize, but how about a little balance?
White Trash Liberal
This is less about Obama and more about using Obama to promote Glenn’s libertarian legal views. Just remember: this is the same dumbass who thought Citizens United was valid because, hey, the system’s already bad: how much worse can it get?
Civil libertarian social democracy with unfettered corporate speech, limited military and universal welfare protections is a utopian hipster pose. Worthy of striving for? Yes. To be used as an idealistic cudgel to beat our allies without any pragmatism? No.
ExistentialFish
@Libby:
Missed this earlier, but that was a great post.
vernon
Greenwald is a libertarian Randian Nazi fuck because SHUT UP THATS WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joseph
John, you’re wrong on this one.
In the video, Obama promises to not use signing statements “to do an end run around the Constitution.”
The signing statement itself says this of section 1113:
For section 2262 it says only that it will be interpreted to “not abrogate” well-established Presidential prerogatives.
For the first provision he says not that he will ignore it but seek repeal, and for the second case he says it will be interepreted to be consistent with Presidential powers that are well-established by the Constitution. Can you see the difference between these statements and outright Presidential power grabs? You false equivalence depends on ignoring the substance of the arguments and reducing all signing statements to the same thing.