Speaking of the "how stupid...." game that Obozo plays, we have his campaign statement on 'signing statements.'
...this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress," then-Senator Obama said as a presidential candidate in 2008.
Ooooohhhh, a Con-Law Prof! We're really, really, really impressed with Credentials. /sarcasm
So, yah, he's going to use a signing statement as an end-around Congress regarding "czars."
Yah, he's just another lying sack of politician.
Leave it to Dad29 to not look at this issue from ALL angles.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans contend that the "proliferation of czars under the Obama Administration has become a potent symbol of big government."--Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA).
Why? Because lawmakers believe it is unconstitutional for Obama to appoint czars without Senate confirmation.
Fair enough!
However, the President has well-established authority to supervise the executive branch, and has the prerogative to obtain advice from a wide range of people inside and outside the White House (e.g. government officials, business leaders).
Presidents have issued signing statements, which is a standard procedural process, since the Age of Andrew Jackson (1830's) for this reason--to make a point that part of a law may be unconstitutional, but also take into account their responsibility to execute the law while preserving the Constitution.
Stated another way--A president may have a reasonable disagreement over what is constitutional when a law is passed OR when his roles as chief executive are called into question by the legislative branch.
Congress offers its view of the law through the legislative process. The executive branch offers its view of the law through signing statements. The judicial branch may also weigh in separately should a constitutional problem arise.
And, lo and behold, the Supreme Court did! Perhaps you should blame Antonin Scalia and friends who gave presidential signing statements significant weight in determining the meaning of a statute AND in defining the roles as chief executive, marking a milestone in the debate over the Bush Administration's expansion of executive power.
So it would appear that Obama is well within his right to name czars without Senate approval, at least according to the rationale of conservative jurists!
www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/15/scalias_dissent_gives_signing_statements_more_heft
The Reagan Administration (imagine that) was the first to conceive of signing statements as a method to assert executive power and to influence the courts. Future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in February 1986 wrote a memo that said frequent signing statements were a way to “increase the power of the executive to shape the law.”
ReplyDeleteTalk about judicial activism!
Perhaps the naming of czars by Obama, as well as those named by those president's before him, is unconstitutional because it circumvents the legislative process.
But talk to the conservative members of the Supreme Court for providing him with the legal ammunition to
potentially circumvent the checks and balances system.
Thanks for the fine advice, but both of you missed the point. Perhaps you want to re-read the post.
ReplyDeleteObozo SAID one thing and DOES another.
Get it?
I don't care if it's legal, or if Scalia or Thomas or John Jay ruled on it.
And Obozo also flaunts his knowledge of ConLaw, right?
Like I said, just another sack of lying politician.
No, it's the same anony. And YOU missed the point. Obama stated he would not abuse signing statements like his predecessors when Congress enacted legislation. For any presidential candidate to say they will never, ever use signing statements is pure folly. Of course Obama's detractors are going to claim that he broke another campaign promise.
ReplyDeleteLook at the context of the situation. Congress did not pass a law and Obama issued a signing statement immediately questioning its validity. Rather, conservative members are bemoaning how Obama is installing de factor members to his cabinet without Senate confirmation. According to past presidential precedent and conservative legal jurisprudence, Obama is well within his authority, however suspect is this current practice.
Elections have consequences. Obama won. Let the adults govern. Hey, I'm just using your logic (?).
Actually, Congress DID pass a law--the magical disappearing budget 'reduction.' And Obama immediately issued a signing statement saying that he would ignore de-funding of the 'czars.'
ReplyDeleteI like the way Obozo phrased it:
While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
He stated that he would not 'faithfully execute' the law, but ignore its provisions--that is, evade it and the accompanying accountability.
Perfectly clear.
In October 2009, constitutional law scholars, both on the right and left, testified at a Senate hearing on czars. They, in essence, agreed that the president’s personal staff are independently responsible only to the president, and he is accountable to the American electorate. Their practical authority is not legal authority, and as long as the distinction is rigorously maintained, there is no constitutional crisis.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution's "appointments clause" mandates that senior federal officials be appointed with the Senate's consent, though lesser appointments can be made by the president, agency heads, or courts, as Congress provides. Well-established Supreme Court precedent holds that an "officer" subject to those requirements is one who exercises "significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States." Czars only assist the president in developing policies; they do not have ANY power to sign onto regulations that give them the force and effect of law.
Unless, of course, those czars serve in official government capacities. Unless, of course, those czars were confirmed by the Senate. I wonder if this “constitutional crisis” is manufactured outrage by some on the right…
washingtonindependent.com/57977/when-is-a-czar-not-a-czar
Therefore, in a bold maneuver, Republicans are working to withhold funds to pay czars, and Obama issued a signing atement as a LEGITIMATE means to protest a law that interferes with the constitutionally protected responsibilities of the executive branch.
Crystal clear.
It would appear that Republicans are being evasive, not Obama. Some members of that same party did not have any issue when past presidents employed czars or used signing statements, now it's a constitutional crisis?
Whatever!
I wonder if this “constitutional crisis” is manufactured outrage by some on the right…
ReplyDeleteYou mean the Lying of Obama?
You can evade the point of the post forever, of course, as seems to be your wont.
Obama Lied. Budgets Died.
"You mean the lying of Obama?"
ReplyDeleteIf you want to stick to that point despite evidence to the contrary, have at it!
Dad29 hates negroes.
ReplyDeleteThis is anony 6:13 p.m. Anony 10:58 a.m., do you have any hard evidence Dad29 despises black people? No. So shut up.
ReplyDelete