President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties…. In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.
Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats—including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin—sent a letterto Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.
…but only when we feel like it.
Under continued pressure from gay groups and those concerned with our national security, President Obama has refused to step in and halt the firings of gay troops, claiming it’s “not appropriate” to use the president’s “stop-loss” power “simply to say, ‘we will not enforce a law.'” How, then, will the White House explain its recent use of presidential signing statements to do just that?
…
President Obama is willing to repeatedly use a controversial executive power which the American Bar Association has called unconstitutional while he refuses to use far less controversial executive authority—and which is perfectly constitutional—when it comes to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Why?
Go read Nathaniel Frank’s entire post at HuffPo for an answer to that question.
Signing statements are essentially line item veto, which is illegal, according to the US constitution. You’d think a supposed constitutional scholar would understand that.
Now that’s change we can believe in!!!
I’d say that this amounts to an impeachable offense but since we didn’t to it to the last bastard who did it I’m sure we won’t do it now.
There is a perfectly simple answer to this. Barack Obama hates gay people. You do not stand back and endorse active discrimination against people you love.
Maybe you guys should make Obama an Enemy of Slog? Oh wait… nevermind.
Ayup.
Duh. The Bush signing statements weren’t just dangerous on their own. They were dangerous because of the precedent they set. Before the election when it looked like Hilary could win, the only conservative opposition to signing statements came from people terrified that a CLINTON! would us the same tactics.
Wait, guys- there’s a good explanation.
You see, Dan has totally pissed me off and I’m Hellbound determined not to do ANYTHING the annoying little Prick wants.
Nothing.
Nada.
Zippo.
Yes, it is petty and small but it feels really really good.
Fuck You.
You filthy animal.
Maybe,
Just maybe,
If you’d let them get health care passed,
There might be something in your stocking about DOMA and DADT.
But until then, it ain’t gonna happen, cause it would be political suicide, and everyone knows it.
Errr… you do know that “signing statements” and “excecutive orders” are two entirely different things, don’t you?!?
Please say you do — and that you’re being intentionally dim-witted just to try and make a point. (I’d really hate to think that you seriously don’t understand that difference, Dan!)
Unfortunately, Presidential administrations tend to retain the spoils of the power-grab conducted by previous administrations. Congress must assert itself, if it has the balls.
Signing statements are unconstitutional. This is fucked.
While I agree that presidential signing statements are grossly abused and overused, and that Obama should use executive power to stop discharging fags, connecting the two is a non sequiter. Obama’s (arguably) expansive interpretation of executive power when it comes to signing statements have exactly nothing to do with his reluctance to use his executive powers to paralyze DADT. Signing statements are (theoretically) the method that Presidents use to avoid enacting unconstitutional portions of certain laws. DADT is not unconstitutional, and therefore not under the purview of signing statements. Obama’s power in this case comes exclusively from a provision of that law, not the Constitution.
See related information at The Obameter (a project of PolitiFact, which is a project of the St. Petersburg Times “to help you find the truth in American politics”), where they’re tracking the status of over 500 campaign promises.:
Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 516 (status: compromise):
Man, you kool-aid drinkers sure picked a winner!