- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
President Obama promised Monday that he would rarely impose his own interpretation of legislation by attaching statements when he signs bills, pulling back significantly from the controversial use of the tactic by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused," Obama said in the memo. "I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities."
Longtime Bush critics, however, excoriated Obama for failing to put a complete end to the practice.
"There should be a clean break with the past on this," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "The president shouldn't be asserting - as President Bush did - wholesale objections to entire sections of statutes and claiming some kind of presidential authority to ignore them."
Anders said his group appreciates Obama's pledge to reduce the number of signing statements. But he said the danger remains that, instead of using the statements to provide guidance to government officials, the new president could use them to ignore the will of the Congress.
Former Bush administration officials said they could detect little difference between Obama's promise and Bush's standards for issuing signing statements.
"This has been a standard practice going back decades. It's just when President Bush did it, his critics pounced," said former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. "They're going to do the same thing, whenever they feel like it."
Both presidential candidates last year criticized Bush for the practice. Obama accused Bush of attempting to change the meaning of legislation and of trying to thwart enforcement of some statutes. But Obama did not pledge to get rid of the practice, saying at the time that its limited use could help protect a president's "constitutional prerogatives."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said during the campaign that he would never issue a signing statement as president. "Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it," he told the Washington Post.
This is yet another issue that will seperate the Democrat partisans (who will ignore this) and the liberal ideologues (who will complain about this).
Why? It doesnt change anything I said.Please explain to me the difference between the Democrat partisans and liberal ideologues, and the Republican partisans and conservative ideologues, other than the fact that you support the side of one of them.
I'll put you in the "partisan that will give The Obama a pass on this" camp.BWAHAHAHAHA now a liberal has all that power bush amassed:lol:
I'll put you in the "partisan that will give The Obama a pass on this" camp.
Thanks.
How can you enter a debate and not know something about this?Please explain to me the difference between the Democrat partisans and liberal ideologues, and the Republican partisans and conservative ideologues, other than the fact that you support the side of one of them.
So in effect, Obama is simply a President like any other in recent history. At his core, he's a politician. What he says and what he does may end up being different things.
If he actually reduces the number of times he uses them as opposed to Bush, that is a change. A change in frequency of use.
Big deal?
So in effect, Obama is simply a President like any other in recent history. At his core, he's a politician. What he says and what he does may end up being different things.
If he actually reduces the number of times he uses them as opposed to Bush, that is a change. A change in frequency of use.
Big deal?
So in effect, Obama is simply a President like any other in recent history. At his core, he's a politician. What he says and what he does may end up being different things.
If he actually reduces the number of times he uses them as opposed to Bush, that is a change. A change in frequency of use.
Big deal?
Aside from the fact that his most constant and routine campaign message was that he was a "Change" from politics as usual?
No, not at all.
Just that he basically pulled the wool over a vast amount of Democrats eyes who kept telling us how much of a "Change" he was going to be from politics as usual and Bush's tactics as a politician.
Call me naive, but I like consistency. If a politician rips into someone for doing something and then turns around and does the same thing, they should be called out on it. Same applies to posters.
In your mind, does this excuse Bush of all his failings?What can I say, he's a politician. I don't like it, but you know what...show me one President in recent history that has actually done everything they said they would do?
In your mind, does this excuse Bush of all his failings?
Lerxst said:I'm not excusing it, I suppose I'm asking what did you really expect?
So you don't like them saying one thing and doing another. I get it. I don't think anybody does. Show me a President in recent history who hasn't done this. I'm not excusing it, I suppose I'm asking what did you really expect?
What can I say, he's a politician. I don't like it, but you know what...show me one President in recent history that has actually done everything they said they would do?
I suppose I am a bit jaded, but then again I never fully expected him to do some of the things he promised. I supported him because of his position on certain issues. One of which restoring support to state and local law enforcement, which he is absolutely doing.
It's a mixed bag with politicians. This is never going to change. There is no "ONE." The Obama campaign team did like any other succesful Presidential campaign team has done...they developed a strategy and got their man elected. But I suppose if we're not going to gripe about what they do why be here right?
You dont get my meaning.There you go.
I stated long ago that The Obama was JAFLD*.But this is the problem and why we're making a fuss out of it. Many of us were saying EXACTLY what you're saying now. That Obama is not some big Change from politics as usual, Obama isn't this fresh faced new spin on politics. He's a politician saying **** to people that they want to hear and not being fully truthful.
If everyone shared that attitude, I suspect they'd do it a lot more often. If everyone called them out on it, I suspect they'd do it a lot less often.
The fact is, there are many examples in recent history of ways in which vigilant constituents can force politicians to abide by their promises. Many groups have managed to get politicians to promise not to do things, such as raise taxes, which the politicians are incredibly scared to break. Just look at the most recent CA budget situation where Republicans refused to agree to raise taxes because they knew they would catch hell for it.
My attitude is born of the fact that I can't remember a time when the voters didn't scream at the top of their lungs to hold our political leaders accountable. When has this not happened? And how much has actually changed? It's not us, it's them.If everyone shared that attitude, I suspect they'd do it a lot more often. If everyone called them out on it, I suspect they'd do it a lot less often.
The fact is, there are many examples in recent history of ways in which vigilant constituents can force politicians to abide by their promises. Many groups have managed to get politicians to promise not to do things, such as raise taxes, which the politicians are incredibly scared to break. Just look at the most recent CA budget situation where Republicans refused to agree to raise taxes because they knew they would catch hell for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?