Obama instructs his administration not to rely on Bush’s signing statements.
Obama instructs his administration not to rely on Bush’s signing statements.
The New York Times’ Charlie Savage writes that President Obama has instructed his administration not to rely on any of Bush’s signing statements, calling into question their legitimacy:
In his directive, Mr. Obama said that any signing statement issued before his presidency should be viewed with doubt, placing an asterisk beside all of those issued by Mr. Bush and other former presidents.
“To ensure that all signing statements previously issue are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, and provision of a statute,” he wrote.
Obama said he will employ the use of signing statements sparingly, doing so when “Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional.” Savage notes that Obama’s new directive is “consistent with what he said during the 2008 presidential campaign.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You got to love him. Good for you, Mr. President!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pmHalleluja!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pmHalleluja!!!
Halleluja!!!
Impressive. Golf-clap for the President.
But, what is this new theme of putting every single action under the “campaign promises” microscope? Is this the new direction we will engage in with ALL politicians, or is this a special approach reserved solely for President Obama?
Seems like all these media folk did NOT put Bush (or Clinton, for that matter) under this detailed examination. I am all for holding ALL politicians to their campaign promises, within reason. But where is the media attention on the rest of the elected leaders we have (regardless of party)? ALL of them made promises when campaigning. When will we see this close of an examination on the rest of them?
It IS coming… right?….. right? …..
….right?…..
March 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pmSWEET!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pmSee what happens when you have a Constitutional Scholar elected President? He actually starts following the Constitution!
A far cry from “it’s just a g*ddamned piece of paper” isn’t it?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pmWell done, President Obama.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:45 pm3. CageyCretin Says: But where is the media attention on the rest of the elected leaders we have (regardless of party)? ALL of them made promises when campaigning. When will we see this close of an examination on the rest of them?
Understand, the media is biased and broken. Waiting for corporate shills like the MSM to set the tone will result in staggering disappointment.
Decide for yourself, don’t wait for, or give a grain of credit to, the mainstream media.
Caveat Emptor…
March 9th, 2009 at 1:45 pmThat is definitely a great improvement, but I would think signing statements only really make sense if something is ambiguous. It seems to me that it is not event he President’s job to decide if something is unconstitutional or not.
That being said, I like that policy much better than the previous one!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pmgood
March 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pmI feel like a ton of bricks just slid off the shoulders of the Constitution.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pmHoorah Obama! That criminal Bush conveniently slid himself out of every law he signed (hypocrite!). Now they will be found to be unconstitutional.
Score a HUGE one for Obama!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pmJust like that, bush’s signing statements are just a god damned piece of paper….literally.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pmCheers for our Constitution following 8 long years of the Bush Cabal using it for their personal toilet paper.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm.
… But defending the authors of the TORTURE MEMO’S stays?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-seeks-dis.html
… Or suppressing evidence as to the extent of warrantless spying on Americans carries on?
http://washingtonindependent.com/31944/obama-doj-defies-federal-judge?ref=fp8
.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm“It seems to me that it is not event he President’s job to decide if something is unconstitutional or not.”
Yeah, I think that’s the distinct role of the Supreme Court, but I’m all for cutting out the middle-man when possible.
I’m diggin’ it!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pmHe’ll only use signing statements when a bill ” …has provisions he decides are unconstitutional.” WTF! Why would Obama sign a bill with unconstitutional language instead of vetoing it. Christ on a cross, isn’t there anyone in DC that thinks the Constitution works if allowed to, and that includes not signing legislation, not signing statements. Pass the shovel, it’s time to bury our Republic.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pmListening to MSM, Obama is a huge failure. “It’s the economy stupid!” is their rallying cry. Hmm. Let’s see.. Reversing the stem cell ban, no more torture, signing the Lily bill, reinstating SCHIP.. ect. Yeah, What a failure.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pmWhat’s your point, Archie?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pmThanks for describing the bush administration so accuratly and acknowledging why our country is better off with him gone.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pmArchie, what are you babbling about? Who do you think issued those signing statements, some private citizen? How dumb are you? Do you get a disability check for mental deficiency or are you just pretending?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pmI thought Limbaugh was the annoited one.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pmArchie B Says:
More pandering mixed with double speak from the anointed one..
March 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
This thread isn’t about Rush Limbaugh.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pmOops, sorry P.D., didn’t mean to tread on your toes. :|
March 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pmThe people no longer trust or listen to the MSM for any relevant news. Newspapers are two days behind the internet and the MSM is a pathetically antiquated propaganda “tool” – no longer necessary OR relevant.
In the next year people will stop watching entirely.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pmWell, we were admittedly up to our neck when bush left but we are digging our way out now. No thanks to you.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pmWatch out Zooey, we shouldn’t feed the trolls.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pmP.D. Says:
I thought Limbaugh was the annoited one.
Maybe you’re confusing Anointment with Rush’s Ass-ointment. For his cyst, y’know.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pmArchie B: Right on! You’ve described the criminal Bush Regime to a tee!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pmSavage notes that Obama’s new directive is “consistent with what he said during the 2008 presidential campaign.”
On the other hand — which is more important:
1) that a politician acts in accord with his or her campaign promises?
or
2) that a politician uses their elected office to do the job that he or she was hired to do in a manner consistent with the constitution and the laws of our land, for the benefit of the entire nation (or state – depends on the position, of course), regardless of campaign promises?
I think that if #2 is being accomplished, then #1 is insignificant in comparison.
The incessant repetition of this examination of the President’s actions compared to campaign promises is intended ONLY to, eventually, offer ammunition to attack the president with. It serves no other useful purpose — it is the watching and waiting for “the right one” to occur so it can be run up the flagpole, never mind the actual effects of policy — just compare it to the campaign promises, and ignore any measurement of effectiveness.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pmBush basically said “I don’t have line item veto? Fine, let me scribble in the margins here and make that law.”
Finally, a true American patriot who believes in following through on the oath he took at his inauguration.
PEACE
March 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pmI thought it was Sarah Palin.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pmThank you Mr. President.
A clarification Archie, He’s the elected one. You just want to paint a different picture of the legally elected President of the United States. Isn’t that the argument some of those on the right are using about the 400 million dollar man?
Now there’s double speak.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pmThe country has moved on beyond Bush Era Fascism and Archie B (bunker?) still has his head up his butt.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pmZooey, don’t worry about it. I can just see people like Archie, genuflecting to their King Limbaugh. Kind of makes me shutter.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pmP.D. Says:
Zooey, don’t worry about it. I can just see people like Archie, genuflecting to their King Limbaugh. Kind of makes me shutter.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I can picture Archie groveling at Ann Coulter’s bony feet, begging her to…..do whatever it is she does.
Ew.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pmP.D. Says:
I thought Limbaugh was the annoited one.
No, the new leader of the party is a 13 year old brace face punk named Johnathan Krohn.
He’s called a conservative wunderkind, and spoke at CPAC.
A real chip off the Limbaugh block.
¶ AIO
March 9th, 2009 at 2:03 pm.
Dear Archie B,
When you wrote, “Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement, viewing all dissenters as enemies to be destroyed,” You perfectly described what the Bush Administration engaged in. Warrantless spying on Americans and especially targeted journalists.
You wrote, “Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective nation or race (democracy, individualism, liberalism); IMPERIAL PRESIDENT!
You continued, “that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (internationalism, communism, class conflict, laissez-faire capitalism); When did America become “THE HOMELAND”?
And you rallied on, “that protects and empowers people deemed weak and degenerate (egalitarianism); HURRICANE KATRINA!
And then rallied more, “that seek to preserve institutions and values that restrict the social or biological development and unity of a nation or race (conservatism); umm, suppression of NASA and science all together
under Bush…
And finished out with, “and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation (pacifism),” Since when is preemptive warfare an ambition and what does that make the military?
Face it Archie B,
Your team heralded in the Fascist Regime and you’re here still cheering for them. That smell is only the pile of dung you’ve been building up for yourself.
.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pmI believe he is touting the virtues of fascism.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pmZooey Says:
I can picture Archie groveling at Ann Coulter’s bony feet, begging her to…..do whatever it is she does.
Well, thanks BUNDLES for putting me off my lunch.
Double “ewww”.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pmDo we really need to applaud the President because he’s now doing the job he was elected to do?
Shows you what we’ve almost become.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pmMaybe Ann and Limbaugh should hook up. I mean she went out with the Prince of Darkness Novak. Double Ew.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pmSigning statements per se are unconstitutional. What counts – is the bill signed into law or not? We welcome the presidents clarification if he vetoes a bill, but not the issuance of a ’signing statement’ that attempts to make wrong right.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pmAr Ar Binks, yousa not knowa doublydoubly spake acuza yousa hasa mucha troublytroubly wida singly spake. Yousa post ten isa justa summin yousa musta finded somawhereza inna yousa rightwinga nutnut booksa. Yousa couldna not splainy whatza itsa sez ifna yousa life apended onzit.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pmTime to get out of your momma’s basement.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pmFrom what I have seen of Bush’s many hundreds of signing statements, they all seemed to say the same thing. “I’m above the law, so go fu(k yourself.”
March 9th, 2009 at 2:08 pmDid you forget to take your medication today?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pmArchie B Says:
“Please, ignore the fact obama just surrendered in Afghanistan.”
Ohhhhh! I was wondering why he was sending more troops there…
March 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pmI don’t see the words ‘Signing Statement’ anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independance.
Do we have a nation of laws or not? How can Obama ‘decide’ if something is constitutional – all by himself? Aren’t we going back to an imperial presidency? This is all very confusing to me.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:11 pmArchie B,
March 9th, 2009 at 2:11 pmPlease ignore the FACT that Herr Bush and his Cabal are next at the Hague!
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ExUN_prosecutor_Bush_may_be_next_0307.html
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Ar Ar Binks, yousa not knowa doublydoubly spake acuza yousa hasa mucha troublytroubly wida singly spake. Yousa post ten isa justa summin yousa musta finded somawhereza inna yousa rightwinga nutnut booksa. Yousa couldna not splainy whatza itsa sez ifna yousa life apended onzit.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 2:11 pmLook, you can’t even acknowledge that bush plunged our country into the worst recession since wwII so don’t try to tell us what’s going on because you just don’t know.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pmPoor Archie. He would be more appreciated at Red State. You know, where people threaten others with violence if you don’t kow-tow to their beliefs. He would fit right in.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pmPlease, ignore the fact obama just surrendered in Afghanistan.
Does ‘fact’ now mean whatever crap I pull out of my @ss?
English seems so challenging for right-wingers… it makes you wonder why they’re so hot to declare it our National language.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pmNow he’s the decider? I understood that this was a flaw in the Bush administration. But it’s OK for the O’Barry because he is the Messiah.
All depends on whose Al is getting Gored doesn’t it.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pmZooey, yousa gotta spake….oh, sorry….you have to speak the language of your target audience to be truly understood. This troll is especially dense. How about if I give you a warning sign (!@#) if I’m going to get into the Gunga language in response to Ar Ar Binks?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pmArchie B,
March 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pmIs PEACE something to not strive for?
Archie B Says:
“President Obama said the military was not winning the counter insurgency war in Afghanistan as he opened the door for peace negotiations.”
How did you envision the war there ending? The military commanders were the one’s who told him that there is no military solution.
See what happens when you make stuff up?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pmThe Supreme Court determines constitutionality in our system of government. Congress and the President can act on their belief, but legal cases are the definitive determination.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm.
Dear AlGore,
It is the president’s job to ensure that all laws be faithfully enacted in accordance to the Constitution.
So, yes, the president MUST decide what is and isn’t constitutional. Too bad you lost, otherwise you would be informed on these facts.
.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pmAlGore Says:
“But it’s OK for the O’Barry because he is the Messiah.”
Yes. Deal with it.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pmYeah, but he isn’t a drunken failure. Obama just calls it the presidency.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pmDr. Hussein Matt says: Archie learned how to copy and paste. We should applaud him.
Really? Then perhaps we should applaud a dog that steps in a pile of cow manure and tracks it into the house. Same process.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pmI believe this is what Archie’s babbling about:
“American forces are prepared to make overtures to moderate Taliban commanders using an approach that saw insurgents in Iraq turn against al-Qaeda, President Barack Obama has said.”
March 9th, 2009 at 2:19 pmMax-1 Says:
Archie B,
Is PEACE something to not strive for?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Peace doesn’t help Archie get it up.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pmstateofthedivision,
The Supreme Court determines Constitutionality when laws are challenged in the Court of Law…
… ONLY!
The Supreme Court does NOT determine the Constitutionality of legislation…
… THAT is the president’s job. That and his DOJ advisers.
.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pmZooey, you are assuming that Ar Ar has an “it”. That’s awfully generous of you.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pmArchie B Says: Please, ignore the fact obama just surrendered in Afghanistan.
Please ignore the fact that Bush ’surrendered’ in Afghanistan in 2002 when he subcontracted the capture of Bin Laden to local warlords so Bush could then invade Iraq in 2003.
Pleas ignore the fact that Obama is planning to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Please note that when for example Germany and Japan surrendered, they didn’t increase troop levels which is a characteristic act of a surrendering party.
Please ignore the fact that Archie B. is trying to change the subject.
Do not ever send Archie B. to buy fruits and vegetables, he will only come back with a lawnmower and a dog-toy, every single time.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pmZooey,
March 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pmCure alls come in shades of blue…
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Zooey, yousa gotta spake….oh, sorry….you have to speak the language of your target audience to be truly understood. This troll is especially dense. How about if I give you a warning sign (!@#) if I’m going to get into the Gunga language in response to Ar Ar Binks?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
You’ve gotta do something, PLC. I don’t want to put you on my “ignore list.” :-D
March 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pmBasically, if Bush employs the tactics of negotiating with Iraqis to take out AQI, that’s the Surge ™ and it’s all wonderful sunshine and lollipops.
If Obama employs the tactics of negotiating with Afghanis to take out AQ, that’s surrender.
Is that about right, Archie B?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pmBut signing statements are designed to point out inconsistancies such as whether it is constitutional or not. That doesn’t mean it’s a ruling just a point of contention.
Many laws have been passed that were found to be unconstitutional. Many of them passed with a veto proof majority which the president might be compelled to sign.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pmWell Trollspotter,
March 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pmIf we created them, then we should be able to control them, NO?
Tell it to the Russians, Archie.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pmThe DOJ has an opinion on the constitutionality of laws. It brings cased through the federal court system for rulings. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pmWell Archie B,
It’s been 8 years in Afghanistan…
… We haven’t licked ‘em yet.
.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pmZooey, you must be serious – your smile left your face :-
D
If the warning isn’t good, I think of something else.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pmstateofthedivision,
Of LEGISLATION?
REALLY?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pmTrollspotter Says:
“American forces are prepared to make overtures to moderate Taliban commanders using an approach that saw insurgents in Iraq turn against al-Qaeda, President Barack Obama has said.”
That’s because they’ve finally come to understand what the Taliban actually is… it’s a movement originating and permeating the area of Afghanistan and Pakistan… it IS the people… and there are many factions that exist within the label, so the smart thing would be to engage those who will act in line w/ what we went after them to begin w/… for harboring Al Queda.
People like Archie probably don’t remember the reason we went after the Taliban to begin with and just here “taliban” and think “terrorist”.
Sorry for helping Archie derail the thread, but I do believe that lies and misrepresentaions need to be addressed when they appear as they so often do.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pmPlease ignore the fact that trolls can make up shit faster than Cecil B. DeMille killed off extras.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm“I’LL”, dammit! Maybe I better be more careful with Gungan.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pmArchie B:
From the article you’re so pretend enraged about:
March 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pmCoalition military commanders have repeatedly stressed the increasingly violent insurgency in Afghanistan cannot be solved by military means.
What experience do you have that makes you think you know better than Coalition military commanders? Go ahead: Make your case.
Hey Archie, everyone at TP is dying. Can you leave now?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm**last gasp**
Archie, got nothing except an obsession with Obamas’ balls. Quite telling really.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pmWould anyone care to ask Mr. Bunkie which imperialist nation he’d like to see us emulate, Great Britain 18th & 19th century, or Russia, circa 1970s?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:34 pmArchie… I wonder, why didn’t Bush ‘kill the enemy and then leave’ in Afghanistan?
Didn’t he have 7 years to get ‘down to business?’
Oh, war and international relations are always more complicated than Rambo?
Too complicated for a chicken-hawk with a ‘war-gasm’ habit like you to worry about?
Oh, cool… we’ll just ignore your fascist grunts from now on then shall we? You can go back to playing ‘Counter-strike’ and reading Tom Clancy… Obama’s got this, thanks.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:35 pmCongress can and has changed laws based on Supreme Court rulings. One option Congress has is changing the Constitution, i.e., amending it.
It’s a system of checks and balances.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YPCs9GJB70wC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=determining+constitutionality&source=bl&ots=GQocuf4WNL&sig=IRHEbQpCMMeSoIvDTeLkqx0eN7U&hl=en&ei=NmG1Sd38LYicMqXc6O8E&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result
There are restrictions on who can bring a case asserting unconstitutionality. One must be harmed by the law.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:37 pmWell, at least Obama has taught courses in constitutional law (U. of Chicago). That’s helpful.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pmWah. Archie is hurting my feelings. I’ll never get over it.
**eyes rolling**
March 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pmUniversity of Chicago Law School, to be exact.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pmI wonder if that thought specifically crossed the minds of those we sent to help the mujahideen. Or if they just thought, “Ah, if something happens down the road, that’s someone else’s problem.”
March 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pmObama said he will employ the use of signing statements sparingly, doing so when “Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional.”
Beware, Oh Mr. President, “The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be…unnatural.”
March 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm?Palpatine, to Anakin Skywalker
Stratrat: Do we have a nation of laws or not? How can Obama ‘decide’ if something is constitutional – all by himself? Aren’t we going back to an imperial presidency? This is all very confusing to me.
Understandably confusing.
Try this:
Bush: There’s nothing unconstitutional in denying habeas corpus, so I approve this bill.
Obama: This bill includes a denial of habeas corpus, and I deem that unconstitutional, so that part won’t be exercised as law.
Those who want to argue the case then take the offending item to the Supreme Court, where its constitutionality is decided.
BUT whilst that process is taking place, an ‘unconstitutional’ item (such as denial of habeas corpus)which had been accepted by the President becomes present LAW, until it is reversed.
I’m not making a complete argument here, but do you see how this might be okay? (Or okay-ish?).
March 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pmIt IS definitely worth thinking about though, so like you I’m a bit confused too.
.
Dear Archie “kill the enemy and leave” B,
How was your chuch service?
What did you pray for?
.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pmArchie B Says:
PatrioticLiberalChristian
How was church, yesterday?
I am happy to report that no right-wing lunatic spouting Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O’Reilly quotes barged in with automatic weapons firing to take out the liberals sitting among the conservatices.
Thanks for your concern. It is heartening.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pmArchie, you aren’t capable of pissing me off. There is nothing you could ever say or do that would make me feel angry. You simply do not possess the power to do it.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pmI have a feeling you have never set foot in a church.
Why, ’cause he said there were no gunmen there yesterday?
Contrary to your personal experience, Archie… most Christians are opposed to murder.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pmArchie, you are Gungan remember, no Jedi, so you shouldn’t “trust your feelings” there little fella.
(I’m trying Zooey!)
March 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pmArchie B Says:
“You’re just pissed because you were proven to be using troop casualties as nothing more than propaganda pieces.”
Obama didn’t start this war.
Bush left it for him to clean up and your blood lust isn’t satisfied because Obama can engage and get them to do what we want instead killing everyone there.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pmdoes this archie b clown not realize that his namesake was a parody of the limited thinking of the right wing mind?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pmPLC, well done. ;)
March 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pmArchie, being a newbie here, puts his foot up his arse again.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pmYou’d do better by barking at the moon, Arch, than taking on either Z or PLC. Your bankrupt philosophy can’t cash the checks your moronic diatribes sign.
OK, Archie, I have to admit that you got me. I have never set foot in a church – I am not a medical doctor, so I don’t practice physical interventions without the appropriate license, even in church.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pmArchie B Says:
“I have a feeling you have never set foot in a church.”
Jesus was a radical from the Middle East. You would have wanted him dead anyway, so what’s your point?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pmDo you have evidence to support this accusation or did you just make it up?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pmstateofthedivision,
I think I have not made my point clear…
… Legislation vs. Law.
Constitutionality of LEGISLATION is that of the presidential responsibility. Once signed into LAW, challenged in a Court of Law, the Constitutionality can be determined.
Yes,
The points you make are correct. The exception is that Legislation is NOT Law. Legislation can be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is purposefully absent during the crafting process because of the need for checks and balances. The owness of Constitutionality of Legislation being passed into law is that of the signatory of that law…
… The President of the USA.
At that moment the president has a choice concerning unconstitutional measures;
1) Veto and send back with instructions…
2) Sign bill into Law and attach a signing statement.
Personally, I feel signing statements detrimental to the crafting and signing process. It’s the easy out. Look at Bush’s history. Congress doesn’t have to craft Constitutional Laws because the president will just ignore what doesn’t suit him. And vice a verse. Having a no signing statements policy/law would require that only Constitutionally sound bills be passed by the president. And the president can’t hide behind signing statements to unconstitutionally misconstrue the newly signed law.
.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pmObama said he will employ the use of signing statements sparingly, doing so when “Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional.”
This does not say that Obama will sign such legislation into law. Typically, signing statements have been used to explain presidential vetos. Of course, like everything else, Bush turned that onto its head and primarily used them to explain why the legislation he was signing into law did not apply to himself.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pmArchie B Says:
Under a different name…
March 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Only cowards like you use different names around here.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pmArchie B Says:
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says
Under a different name this same asshat refers to people that believe in God as “fundies.”
If I am the asshat, then perhaps I should be on your head. BTW, I generally refer to hypocritical Christians as “Christian Pharisees” not “fundies”. And I don’t use any other screen names, so apparently your “feelings” betray you again, little fella.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:51 pmArchie, we are progressives. We care. It’s what we do, how we interact with the world. Why, we even care about you. That’s why we try so hard to correct you because it hurts our feelings to see you acting on such poor information.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:53 pmRemind me Archie, what church did Jesus attend?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pmMax-1 Says: “Dear AlGore, It is the president’s job to ensure that all laws be faithfully enacted in accordance to the Constitution.
So, yes, the president MUST decide what is and isn’t constitutional. Too bad you lost, otherwise you would be informed on these facts.”
There you go Stratrat! .Well done Max-1!
Of course it does rather depend on the President’s understanding of the Constitution and the understanding of his legal advisers and the AG too.
But at least Obama is a Constitutional scholar, whereas Bush (and his legal counsel and his AG) were more like Ayn Rand/John Birch ’scholars’.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pmArchie probably thinks that Jesus was a Chirstian.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pmI’m interested in the mindset of those who feel the desperate need to slander liberals.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pmbelac Says:
“Remind me Archie, what church did Jesus attend?”
Apparently, the church of “Kill your Enemy”.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pmArchie B Says:
March 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pmballs, balls, licky, sucky, balls, balls.
Obama said he will employ the use of signing statements sparingly, doing so when “Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional.”
President Obama’s other option is to find people harmed by the law and bring a case to the federal court system. His DOJ is fully capable of executing such a strategy.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pmshoeless,
SIGNING STATEMENTS…
… The word “SIGNING” has a purpose here, NO?
If the president issues a signing statement on a bill he has not signed and instead vetoes, what’s the purpose of the word, “SIGNING” in the statement for, then?
Isn’t the term “SIGNING STATEMENT” used to describe a statement the president is standing ground on regarding the new Law he just SIGNED?
.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pmArchie B Says:
Please, ignore the fact obama just surrendered in Afghanistan.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
___________
You seem to be confused about the difference between “fact” and “opinion.” I can only assume this is the result of watching too much Fox News.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pmThank you Max-1. I just read and appreciate your response.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm.
Q U E S T I O N
With Archie’s fascination of balls, does this make Archie B…
… A (R)ushpblickin’ LimBaller?
.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm5th Estate,
March 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pmWell, it does depend on who’s giving and receiving said Legal advice, NO?
Archie B:
You’ve been asked for your qualifications that make you think you know more than Coalition military commanders about the conflict in Afghanistan. It’s clear you have none.
You’ve also been asked for evidence to support your slanderous accusation against another poster. Again, it’s clear you have none.
It’s almost as if you enjoy being made to look foolish.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pmNO! Either sign the law or veto it.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pmBill Clinton issued many more signing statements than W.
Really?
How do you figure?
Especially since signing statements changed significantly in nature under Bush and became essentially an unconstitutional ‘line-item veto’ this is plainly ridiculous but the sheer number of opinions Bush attached is also staggering…
Where are you getting your ‘numbers?’
March 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pmwatchdog Says:
“Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements than W.”
How many of those changed the enforcement of those laws? Some were just notes saying that the legislation was good or helpful.
W signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:11 pmTrollspotter @102,
March 9th, 2009 at 3:11 pmWell, with the f_cks that started this mess in Afghanistan back in the ’80’s…
… Is it a wonder that funding for the result of the investment back then(i.e. WAR in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al-CIA-duh!) is passed to their grandchildren?
Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
Well, obviously… but I’m interested to see how they are twisting the numbers to make this claim.
Or is this one of those new ‘facts’ Archie was talking about?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:11 pmWho’s the fake Christian?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pmWhen did President Obama surrender in Afghanistan?
When did Clinton issue more signing statements than W?
When can I enter Never Never Land?
Yes, you are correct Max. I overstated my point. Signing statements were very rare until recently. While they have always been used in legislation signed by the president, they have also been used to explain presidential vetoes to the Congress. Here is an early example.
James Madison appears to have held a similar view and as President once vetoed a bill on constitutional grounds even though he supported it as a matter of policy. See Message to the House of Representatives (Mar. 3, 1817), in I James Richardson (ed.), Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 585 (1896) (while praising the bill’s “beneficial objects,” Madison wrote that he “ha[d] no option but to withhold [his] signature from it” because he thought it unconstitutional).
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm
March 9th, 2009 at 3:15 pmbelac,
FOX-FACTS…
… Make it up on air.
You know, “WE’LL DO IT LIVE THEN!”
.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI’ve never claimed to be a Christian. Never once in my entire life. Whoever you think I am, you’re sadly mistaken.
So why do you feel the need to slander people without evidence? I’d really like to know. Did your parents never teach you that it was wrong?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:17 pmGood find shoeless.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:17 pmThanks for the link!
watchdog Says: “Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements than W.”
Quantity rather than quality, context or content—right, watchdog?
Signing statements in the past have been appended commentaries whereby president’s have expressed their support or concern over aspects of a given bill.
Bush used them not just as line item vetoes but to reverse the fundamental intent of entire bills in accordance with the license he believed he had according to the theory of the ‘Unitary Executive’.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pmwatchdog… it appears your statement, “Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements than W.” is false… but who cares, as long as your intentions were good, right?
Wait, what were your intentions?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pmMax-1: 5th Estate, Well, it does depend on who’s giving and receiving said Legal advice, NO?
Yes</strong>. And it requires those giving and receiving the legal advice that it may be advice only .
The Bush administration seemed to regard the legal advice provided to them was LAW, and those advisers appear not to have disabused anyone of that notion.
Seeding the DOJ with loyalists of a like mind was important to prevent their opinions facing public legal challenge, suggesting that having “gotten-away with” certain practices, precedence would then make their actions ‘legal’ by default.
I appreciate your illumination of the issue, Max.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pmOkay… watchdog, you know Clinton issued 105 signing statements… Bush 157… can you tell me which number is larger?
We can talk about the nature and scope of those statements later… for now, which is a bigger number?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:30 pmoops, bold went awry there, some unintended emphasis.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pmbelac Says: Okay… watchdog, you know Clinton issued 105 signing statements… Bush 157… can you tell me which number is larger?
In what sense, Belac? You know how it is, statistics can be used to ‘prove’ anything! :D
March 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pmAgreed, 5th… you seem to have an intuition for this new ‘fact’ based logic watchdog and Archie are using… a ‘Sick’ sense if you will..
March 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pmArchie B Says:
When can I enter Never Never Land?
———–
You entered the day you voted for obama.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Stop It! You’re killing me! My sides, my sides, they ache, they ache!
March 9th, 2009 at 3:44 pmWhew.
You really should take your schtick on the road. You’d rival any of the comedians on the Bob And Tom All Star comedy tour.
You entered the day you voted for obama.
No, he ACTUALLY won… no Supreme Court needed, thanks! No ‘weapons labs’ in the desert… no , ‘Mission Accomplishes’ banner… it was something that actually happened in objective reality.
I know this is hard… but you’ll get it… mabybe.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:44 pmSo, Archie, who broke you exactly? You come here prattling nonsense day after day without even a basic grasp of the facts. You don’t have a problem with lying to push your agenda. All you seem to care about is the preservation of GOP power and wishing the worst for everyone who’s not a fringe radical right winger. Is that all you are?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm5th Estate @161,
Well, any good dictatorship likes things their way…
… Law? Who needs law when I can hire some lackey lawyer to write “OPINIONS” I later can cite as being legal?
Somehow, “OPINIONS” have supplanted LAW!
March 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pmwatchdog?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:50 pm105 or 157?
Do you need a calculator?
There is usually one on your computer…
Hey Archie,
You still haven’t answered my simpleton questions from the other day…
… You know, those redeeming qualities?
I’m still waiting…
March 9th, 2009 at 3:52 pmYou don’t know which number is larger?
sad.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pmOkay watchdog… you don’t know which number is larger. Fine. How about that substance thing?
Let’s take a look…
March 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Archie B Says:
Yeah… you notice how they don’t source that claim… kinda like you guys don’t.
‘Facts’ are fun!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pmYeah, Archie. I found that website, too.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=1999#q4
When was the last time it was updated?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pmArchie B Says:
“Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.”
It’s (not) funny how that’s the only part of the Constitution that Bush thought was worth protecting… you know… the one that doesn’t exist.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pmArchie B, have you ever stopped to think about how the personality traits you exhibit while trolling and advancing your fringe radical right wing agenda might have something to do with why so many independents decided to turn their backs on the GOP?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pmThat’s because the democrats are professional againsters.
Do you understand the sentence?
78% of G.W.Bush’s statements were a repudiation of the law based on his ‘unitary executive’ theory.
If you subscribe to this theory, then Obama can do whatever he damn well pleases.
If you don’t, then Obama is right to repeal most of Bush’s pending review.
Either way, Obama did the right thing… understand?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pmOnly because the GOP isn’t radically conservative enough for you.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pmArchie B,
When was the last time that section it was updated? So transparent…
March 9th, 2009 at 4:19 pmArchie B Says:
“I got news for you. I’m an (I).”
LOL! Yeah, most Bush supporters are nowadays. It’s the easiest way to deflect criticism of the last 8 years. So transparent…
March 9th, 2009 at 4:19 pmArchie B, you are the reason the GOP is failing and you don’t even know it.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pmArchie BHead Says:
“I got news for you. I’m an (I).”
You’re an (I)diot?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm(I)mbecile?
(I)gnoramus?
From Archie’s post: LOL!
LOL!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pmArchie,
Do you have evidence that Clinton had more than 105?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pmArchie,
March 9th, 2009 at 4:28 pmDo you believe in a ‘unitary executive?’
First off, you think you’re an imbecile? Is that inferiority complex the reason why you troll?
But to answer your question, most of us knew this through the last few months of the election. I’d show fellow moderates the kind of abject craziness and hostility you and those like you would exhibit on various blogs, and we’d all say, “Wow, the right wing has gone totally apeshit! Look at how rude and crazy their supporters are!”
You definitely helped cement that impression, and this led to far more votes against McCain than you realize.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:29 pmArchie B Says:
“However, the question is somewhat misleading.”
Yes. And you also lose following that train of thought, but even more so.
What is your point? Do you have one?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm“However, the question is somewhat misleading.”
Right- which is why we look at the percentage of statements wee Constitutional in nature:
Get it?
Do you believe in a ‘unitary executive?’
March 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pmdo you understand the difference between ‘rhetorical’ and ’substantive’ signing statements, Archie?
Do you believe in a ‘Unitary Executive?’
March 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pmArchie?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pmHow is that germane to our conversation?
Other than letting you duck the question, I mean.
Do you believe in a ‘Unitary Executive?’
March 9th, 2009 at 4:44 pmArchie, “independent” does not mean spending the day in depends.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:46 pmArchie… I don’t give a crap what Dean Esmay thinks… I asked you a question.
Do you believe in the ‘Unitary Executive?’
March 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pmArchie B Says:
belac Says:
Do you believe in Jesus?
What does a liberal fictional character have to do with signing statements?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pm211:
March 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pmThat doesn’t answer the question belac asked now does it? Oh and did you or did you not ever mess with Forsythia?
Archie, do you believe in the ‘Unitary Executive?’
I tire of asking such a simple question…
March 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pmDrug pusher? I have no idea who you’re talking about. But the point stands, Archie B, it’s really not enough to show up on liberal blogs ranting and raving without a clear grasp of the facts. If you’re the troll I think you are, I showed an example of your posts to a conservative friend of mine (not an ultra-conservative, mind you, but someone who’s voted for the GOP far more often than the Democrats over the years), and she was legitimately upset, arguing that it would be unfair of me to judge the conservative movement by the example you set. She agreed with me that you do far more harm than good to your cause, but also got me to admit that there are trolls for the left who post on red blogs that aren’t much better.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:52 pmArchie B Says:
PatrioticLiberalChristian
So, you posting under this name would be considered a “fallacy,” right?
No. Do you, all by your little lonesome, believe in the Unitary Executive as a valid governmental concept?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pmArchie B Says:
belac Says:
Archie… I don’t give a crap what Dean Esmay thinks
————
I do.
So, we should assume that you disagree with the position that Bush took?
There is no ‘unitary executive?’
Then Obama did the right thing, huh? Suspending those signing statements pending review, I mean…
March 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pmYes, Archie, we know you give lots of crap. However, we don’t know if you support the concept of the Unitary Executive?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm… is that right?
You don’t believe in the ‘Unitary Executive?’
Archie, this is the kind of question that can best be answered with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no,’ just so you know.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pmArchie, a diversion of a diversion brings us back to on topic. Do you or do you not value and support the concept of the Unitary Executive?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pmRight, but even Michelle Malkin thinks Dean Esmay is “unhinged.” You know that, right? You should really consider what so many of us have been telling you, Archie B: you are waaaaay off on the right wing fringe.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pmArchie? Yes or No?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:00 pmWhat the hell is the hold up? More than enough time has passed to look it up.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pmOh, I don’t expect you to believe me. If I thought there was a realistic chance that you’d stop trolling, I probably wouldn’t have told you. I fully expect you to keep up the desperate, mean-spirited foolishness. It’s great for the progressive cause. And why should you stop, anyway? You enjoy it, and obviously you can’t think through the long-term consequences of your actions.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:03 pmCome on, Archie, man up. Unitary Executive?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pmWhat makes me go hmmmmmm is “Does Archie support the concept of the Unitary Executive?”.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:06 pmThat was a lot of words, Archie.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pmDidn’t see a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ though.
I’m beginning to suspect you’re not here for an argument, Archie… abuse is down the hall.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pmArchie B Says:
Do you believe in Jesus?
Well, Jesus in no way believes you’re an independent.
If you have to tell us you’re an I, you’re not. You’re a far-right radical loon.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pmwhat’s ‘gotcha’ about the question?
Last time…
Do you believe in a ‘Unitary Executive?’
March 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pmBut Archie, as much as you like to pretend that you are an independent centrist, the country rejected pretty much everything you believe in this election. Many, many voters who’d gone along with the GOP through the Bush years finally had enough because they couldn’t stand the whole lowest common denominator thing that you embrace so crazily. So it wouldn’t surprise me if what this “lefty loon” (probably just a moderate, right?) was 100% accurate and they did laugh at your blog posts. You, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc. are driving persuadable voters away from the GOP. Big time.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pmIt’s only “gotcha”, Archie, if there is something to be “got”. Are you saying that you are afraid that there might be something in your view of the Unitary Executive that is problematic? Hmmmmmmm?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:11 pmmoderates, lefties, far lefties — what’s not worthy of insult to the GOP gang these days? The shtick is old — the old guard gets off at others trying to please them while refusing to be pleased.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pmNOT putting words in one’s own mouth when asked a debatable question is a sign of real desperation.
Unitary Executive?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pmAs opposed to most of the far lefties on this blog calling me every name in the book on a regular basis, that is comical, to say the least!
I sure hope the moniker ‘Archie B.’ doesn’t refer to Archie Bunker then because he sure liked calling people names. But then, I recall Archie not enjoying being called a bigot.
What is comical is Archie B’s understanding of signing statements.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pmArchie, they call you names because you troll. If you were here looking for a legitimate exchange of opinions or rational debate that would be one thing. But all you do is go to blue blogs to try to insult anyone who hasn’t swallowed the far-right Kool-Aid. Of course everyone here calls you names. You earn those names.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pmArchie… I’m about to call you some names… can you answer the question?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pmYou mean the way you accused another poster here of calling Christians “fundies” when he never said that?
Look, you claim to be an independent, you’ve done so in this very thread. If you don’t think you’re a centrist, that’s a good thing, because you’re very far to the right. Sorry if I mischaracterized you as presenting yourself as a centrist–I’m perfectly willing to believe you’ve come to accept your position on the far tip of the right wing instead.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pmWhat a pathetic coward. This fascist, theocratic, wingnut embodies the very essence of today’s pitiful Republican Party. Even the craven denial of association to his beloved GOP refects the sorry state of his party. The disavowal by some of the party’s most hard core right-wing fanatics is the best indicator that the Republican Party is finished.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:18 pmArchie… yer yella fella. Come back when ya got some guts… or better talking points.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pmGood point. It’s like, if someone has to tell you he isn’t an a-hole…
March 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pmArchie B Says:
Did you answer the question?
No?
Shocking?!?!
March 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pmArchie, how about giving us an “independent” thought – unfiltered, unprogrammed? Do you, independently and of your own accord, hold the Unitary Executive to be a sound and Constitutional doctrine?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pmOK, try this one. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pmArchie, will you teach this loon
March 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pmAnd can you please do it soon?
This loon wants you to be instructive
And tell him your views on the Unitary Executive.
It’s not in the Old Testament.
It’s not in the New Testament.
It’s not in the Apocrapha.
My pastors have neglected to tell me.
Archie, can you tell me about your belief in the Unitary Executive?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:32 pmYou keep using that word, so let’s explore it.
What is a “loon?” Someone who voted for President Obama? That seems to be your criteria, after all.
What rationalizations do you have to tell yourself each morning to pretend that the majority of voters in this country are certifiably insane?
Again, Archie B, if we seem like left-wing loons, it may be because you’re sooooooo far on the right wing that everyone seems like a left wing loon to you.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:32 pmHere is an idea. If you won’t answer the question, will you atleast explain why you won’t answer the question?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pmYeah, explain why you think it’s a ‘gotcha’ question… or I’ll call ya yella again.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pmBye Archie… you weren’t much fun.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pm…but you were YELLA!
March 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pmLoony, I’m loony for feeling uninformed
I’m loony, loony for feeling confused
I knew you’d tease me as long as you wanted
And then someday you’d leave my brain abused
I’m loony for trying and loony for prying
March 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pmAnd I’m loony for asking you
If you support the Unitary Executive.
265
March 9th, 2009 at 5:42 pmWhat does that have to do with answering the question you were asked?
Does your keyboard lack the capability to type YES or NO?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:42 pmPoor Archie obviously doesn’t understand the question. Bush didn’t know what it meant either until Cheney explained, “It means you can tell Congress and the courts to go fu(k themselves.”
March 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pmNobody is asking you what President Obama thinks about the Unitary Executive, Archie. We’re asking YOU about YOUR thinking? Or don’t you have any independent thought?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pmArchie B Says: Read it then spin.
Nice diversion, as you would say.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pmYOUR view on Unitary Executive?
How about a post in this format?:
” I think the Unitary Executive doctrine is…..”
Archie
March 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pmYella, Archie. And no amount of cut-n-paste will change that.
Having your own opinion might.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pmAhh, a writing prompt! Very good, PLC.
Archie?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pmSee, Archie B, this is what I’m talking about: you can’t hold your own in a debate, all you can do is show up and post links to other peoples’ ideas that you don’t quite understand but that you desperately hope will put those mean ol’ liberals in their place. You’re a living, breathing example of a ditto head who literally can’t think for himself. It doesn’t make your side look good.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pmArchie, is your real name “Greenwald”? If not, how about an independent answer to our question?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pmYou know, Archie, if you post your treatise on the Unitary Executive here, today, you could cut-and-paste your own post about the subject from now on. Wouldn’t that be great?
Got opinion?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmIsn’t it about time to just write Archie B off as a tool. I mean anyone who reads this can come to no other conclusion
March 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pmlong past time, dbadass… a yella tool, I’d say.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pmbelac, I was a learning disabilities teacher at one time!
Archie, do you need some more help? How about a multiple choice question?
“I, Archie, believe that the Unitary Executive is:
a) good b) bad
Answer: ?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pmI also want to know if Archie B does or does not value and support the concept of the Unitary Executive.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pmAgreed, a yella broken tool.
I’ll call it a day.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pmAh, good, reinforcements. Good luck, Luis M. Later.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pmLet’s make this simple for poor dumb Archie. Do you think the president should legally be allowed to tell Congress and the courts to go fu(k themselves?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pmArchie, you should go check and see if Edith’s got supper on the table or you need to give her some ‘home correction’.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:56 pmBut, you thought it was OK for Bush/Cheney to tell Congress and the courts to go fu(k themselves?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pmArchie B Says:
No.
HEY!!! Alright! So Obama is right to revoke the signing statements of Bush that re-enforced that notion you don’t believe in, right? The ‘Unitary Executive’ thingy…
March 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pmSame shit, different hate site. You post proof and they scream for “your own ideas.” You post your own ideas and they scream “link!”
Here’s the problem, Archie.
You need to have both.
You need your own opinion… AND you need the citations that show HOW you arrived there.
See?
You can’t have one without the other…
March 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pmThis was Archie’s first post in this thread and it clearly shows his ignorance:
Archie B Says:
“To ensure that all signing statements previously issue are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, and provision of a statute,” he wrote.
—————-
Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement, viewing all dissenters as enemies to be destroyed. Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective nation or race (democracy, individualism, liberalism); that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (internationalism, communism, class conflict, laissez-faire capitalism); that protects and empowers people deemed weak and degenerate (egalitarianism); that seek to preserve institutions and values that restrict the social or biological development and unity of a nation or race (conservatism); and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation (pacifism).
See Dixie Chicks for prime example of “suppress all criticism and opposition to the government”. Now that Republicans are out, Rush is trying his best to get President Obama to do something to shut him up. President Obama won’t bite because he is actually intelligent enough to see through Rush’s enormously pompous act.
I don’t see too much “suppression” of right wing talking points.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pmYou can go suck your puppet in your own time.
I just want to know if you approve or disapprove of the whole “Unitary Executive” idea.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pmArchie B, there’s totally a way out of this. You could just admit that you don’t understand the issues very well, but you hate what Obama’s doing because he’s a Democrat and you hate all Democrats because they’re Democrats and if Bush did it that was fine because he’s a Republican and whatever Republicans do is a-ok with you unless they act like Democrats. That’s totally a legitimate way for you to go.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pmI rec. that one, Archie… you’re growing!
March 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pmbelac Says:
You need your own opinion… AND you need the citations that show HOW you arrived there.
…
You can’t have one without the other…
Begging to disagree here on a bit, but in my opinion, you don’t need citations to prove your opinion. You need citations to prove facts.
Sadly enough a lot of people confuse facts with opinions, and believe everything Fox News / Rushbo tells them.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pmTrollspotter,
Nailed it!
March 9th, 2009 at 6:05 pmTrollspotteer, that can’t the reason, because Archie told us he is not a Republican. He is Independent.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:05 pmSure, Luis.
But you shouldn’t be surprised if people don’t take you too seriously if you say, ‘well, that’s my opinion!’ and refuse to explain how or why you arrived at that opinion… that’s all I was saying.
Obviously, you can have any opinion you want- but it will carry more weight if you can explain it.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pmArchie B Says:
“No, I don’t support fascism, either.”
Let’s forget about how you did for most of 8 years… how is revoking the signing statements an act of fascism?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pmOr you can call everything, ‘Hate’ and ‘name-calling’ and just refuse to post an opinion or a citation… Archie seems to favor this method.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pmbelac Says:
Obviously, you can have any opinion you want- but it will carry more weight if you can explain it.
I agree completely. It was just a minor nitpick :)
March 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pmNot my style.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm—
I part of me is inclined to ask wht your style is but why bother. It won’t get answered but maybe you could humor me with a post of wht some third party thinks your style is
Wait, let me see if I got this right.
Bush using signing statements to tell Congress to go fu(k themselves= Democracy
Obama revoking Bush’s signing statements telling Congress to go fu(k themselves= Fascism
March 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pmThat might be the “style” he was claiming.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pmI like it when the repugs say that President Obama has too much on his plate. That’s the way we like our leaders…serious, enthusiastic, strong, honest and the best. repugs this is called working for our country.
repugs, just stay out of our way. It’s obvious your club’s transparency is opaque.
ViVa President Obama!
March 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pmArchie B
Why did you come back for more?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pmSpeaking of the Dixie Chicks…remember when the repugs, including chimpy on down, dissed them? limpydic used the airwaves while chimpy and his gang used the wh.
KMBA!
STFU about Mr. Gibb.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pmHey, just stoppin’ by.
Did Archie BHead ever actually answer the question?
Maybe he suffers from reading comprehension dyslexia, and was confused with Urinary Execution.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:06 pmPresident Obama is, in effect, rejecting a lot of executive privilege. Good one.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:38 pmWOW, so this is what it feels like to have a President who is presidential…
March 10th, 2009 at 1:09 am.
Well, I see this thread turned into the Archie B freak show…
So Archie,
What is the redeeming quality to SPYING ON AMERICANS?
What is the redeeming quality to TORTURE?
What is the redeeming quality to usurping the Constitution?
What is the redeeming quality to LYING TO CONGRESS?
**GO BUSH GO**
… Right?
.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:53 amArchie B Says:
So Obama is right to revoke the signing statements
No, I don’t support fascism, either.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes, you do. You are a liar and a fool
March 10th, 2009 at 5:16 amArchie B Says:
No, I don’t use loon logic. Not my style.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are a liar. Loon logic or actually no logic at all that you delude yourself is logical IS your style. You are a moron Archie its time you come to terms with this simple truth
March 10th, 2009 at 5:17 am