Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Obozo's Tin Pot

Sowell, quoted at Cold Fury:

No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained — not just the ones he happens to agree with.

If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.

His EO and 1,500,000,000 rounds of ammo at DHS makes him King?

I don't think so.


Jim said...

So Sowell complained about Bush's signing statements, correct?

Dad29 said...

I'll just leave that there for all to see, Jim.

Couldn't ask for a better exposition of your willful ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Yep, a distinct political decision--NOT an executive order--on Obama's part, but well within the standards of prosecutorial discretion. An executive branch prerogative, one rooted in history by presidents on the left and on the right. It's within the president's authority. Don't like it? Vote for a new president or take Obama to court to force compliance. This situatio is akin to

Speaking of signing statements,
presidents have issued them, which is a standard procedural process, since the Age of Andrew Jackson for this reason--to contest Congress' legal interpretation of legislation.

Stated another way--A president may have a reasonable disagreement over what is constitutional when a law is passed. Congress had offered its view of the law through the legislative process. The executive branch, through signing statements is using its own process of constitutional interpretation. The judicial branch may also weigh in separately should a constitutional problem arise.

Legislative efforts that significantly impede the president's ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities violate the separation of powers by undermining the his ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities.

So it is well within the scope of the executive branch to interpret statutes WITHIN their legal and constitutional meaning. In other words, the type of signing statements Obama seemingly have been using argues that the executive branch has the constitutional authority to carry out his presidential duties and that it is unconstitutional for Congress to try to inhibit this ability.

Interesting that Dad29's idol, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and Scalia's cronies "gave a presidential signing statement significant weight in determining the meaning of a statute, marking a milestone in the debate over the Bush [and subsequent presidential] administration's expansion of executive power."


Anonymous said...

Whoops, please ignore "This situatio is akin to" in the first paragraph.

Jim said...

Good non-answer, Dad.

Anonymous said...

DHS is buying even more ammo