• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations

No, but obviously, you are. No link, no proof, no nothing. Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously denying that Bush used signing statements to nullify sections of laws he signed?

It has been well documented

I think that everyone should comment of this thread. This is a case where Obama and Bush have done exactly the same thing. Whether you agree with signing statements or not, you either have to support both or attack both. The poor little partisans don't know what to do.
 
While I criticized George Bush for many things, this wasn't one of them. Such practices are inevitable in the age of the Imperial Presidency.

Presidents have been evading the strict letter of the law for a long time, increasingly often into the 20th century. The behavior is normal, and while I'm open to the idea of correcting it, I'm more concerned about the country's material prosperity, safety, and long term economic viability.
 
Last edited:
Here ya go apdst

Source [UCSB | Statement on Signing the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004]

Section 6 of the Act includes provisions that, if construed as mandatory, would impermissibly interfere with the President's exercise of his constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and supervise the unitary executive branch. Section 6(a), for example, appears to require the President to implement the measures set forth in section 6(b)(2) of the earlier Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245), which purports to direct or burden the conduct of negotiations by the executive branch with foreign governments, international financial institutions, and the United Nations Security Council. When necessary to avoid such unconstitutional interference, the executive branch shall construe the provisions of section 6 as advisory.
Click to expand...

Now, I'd love to hear your response to NY's post
 
apdst said:
No, but obviously, you are. No link, no proof, no nothing. Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

It's from the link in the OP, had you bothered to read it.

I thought that was self-evident. I guess not.
 
RightinNYC said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16justice.html?pagewanted=print



Another day, another situation where Obama does exactly what he criticized Bush for doing. For those who don't remember, here's Obama's position on signing statements:



There's no way that a reasonable person could look at what is happening here and conclude that Obama is doing anything other than the very thing he criticized and pledged not to do.
Click to expand...
The liberals in our government prove themselves to be hypocrites every single day. Two-faced, politically-calculating liars.
 
Redress said:
You asked for change, I gave you a change. Now it's not good enough. Bummer. There are a number of clear differences between Obama and Bush, it's not my fault you are not rational or reasonable but are a partisan bigot.
Click to expand...
I wondered if you were a member of the "defend The Obama at all costs" brigade. Now I know.

Not sure -why- I wondered, but...
 
Harshaw said:
This isn't just about signing statements, of course . . . it's also about the Justice Dept. crafting a memo which the President is relying on to ignore the law.
Click to expand...
Hey!
Wait!
Didn't GWB do this?
And the liberals complained?
More "change". More partisan bigotry.
 
Goobieman said:
I wondered if you were a member of the "defend The Obama at all costs" brigade. Now I know.

Not sure -why- I wondered, but...
Click to expand...
Notice how he attacked your ability to reason and be rationale, because you question him. Typical of liberal elitism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom