• 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

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16justice.html?pagewanted=print

The Justice Department has declared that President Obama can disregard a law forbidding State Department officials from attending United Nations meetings led by representatives of nations considered to be sponsors of terrorism.

Based on that decision, which echoes Bush administration policy, the Obama administration sent State Department officials to the board meetings of the United Nations’ Development Program and Population Fund in late spring and this month, a department spokesman said. The bodies are presided over by Iran, which is on the department’s terror list, along with Cuba, Sudan and Syria.

The administration’s decision was disclosed in a little-noticed legal memorandum recently posted on the Justice Department Web site.

The law at issue is a fairly narrow one, and presidents of both parties have long objected to such statutes as infringements on their power over foreign relations.

But assertions by the Justice Department that certain laws cannot bind the president have drawn far more attention since the Bush administration, when the Office of Legal Counsel wrote secret opinions authorizing the bypassing of statutes and treaties governing surveillance and the treatment of detainees.

...

In the new opinion, David Barron, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the statute — a restriction Congress imposed in the State Department’s annual budget bill — “unconstitutionally infringes on the president’s authority to conduct the nation’s diplomacy, and the State Department may disregard it.”

His opinion cites many examples of previous administrations of both parties taking a similar view. Among them, Mr. Bush used signing statements to instruct the State Department to interpret identical restrictions as “advisory” rather than mandatory, and his administration sent officials to a Development Program meeting in January.

...

Justice Department officials pointed out that when Mr. Obama signed the legislation containing the provision in March, he issued a signing statement reserving a right to bypass any portions of the bill that restricted his power to conduct diplomacy.

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:

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.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.

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

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.
Rational and reasonable supporters of The Obama are, at present, wondering exactly when the "change" they voted for will arrive.

The partisan, bigoted kool-aid drinkers will defend The Obama no matter what.
 
Missing the link.

Obama is in the wrong here. Although the statuette is stupid and should be removed, he is going about it the wrong way. He never should have signed it in the first place, and if he wants to get rid of it, he should gets the courts to declare it unconstitutional or make congress repeal it. Signing statements should not be used in the such a fashion, as it is an abuse of executive power.
 
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.

Here I sit continuing to be unsurprised. Bush III sure is going at it this week.
 
Rational and reasonable supporters of The Obama are, at present, wondering exactly when the "change" they voted for will arrive.

The partisan, bigoted kool-aid drinkers will defend The Obama no matter what.

That is funny because you spent an entire thread defending Bush for doing exactly the same thing.

Look Here

Hypocrisy at its finest.
 
That is funny because you spent an entire thread defending Bush for doing exactly the same thing.

Hypocrisy at its finest.
On the contrary... yours is a failure to understand the point, at its worst.

I didn't make a statement one way or the other regarding the propriety of the issue, I made a statement regarding supporters of The Obama who expected Him to bring change from the practices of GWB, etc.

The hypocrites are those that condemned GWB for this, but support The Obama in doing the same thing -- thus my statement that "partisan, bigoted kool-aid drinkers will defend The Obama no matter what".


You're forgiven.
 
So you think Obama is right on this matter? If so, I will stand corrected and retract my claim of you being a hypocrite.
 
So you think Obama is right on this matter? If so, I will stand corrected.
I didn't make any statement either way regarding The Obama, so you stand corrected no matter what.
:mrgreen:

But, to directly addrewss your question:
The conduct of foerign policy and foerign relations is the nearly exclusive purview of the President. There's little Congress can directly do to affect his efforts in that regard, and so to ignore law to that effect is, most always, fully within his rights as President.

So, again, you're forgiven.
 
Here I sit continuing to be unsurprised. Bush III sure is going at it this week.

I've become to see it more as Major League Bush.

You know....

Bush on Steroids

Its almost everything I hated about Bush, with few of the things I liked about him, and then a heap load of extra crap I can't stand.

Hope and Change baby. Hope and Change.
 
Stop waffling. You clearly supported Bush using signing statements to ignore parts of the law he considered unconstitutional. To maintain logical consistency and avoid hypocrisy, you must support Obama for making exactly the same choice. If you legitimately believed that the president has such power, it wouldn't matter which president it is. Refusing to say anything it still hypocritical, as you didn't stay silent when Bush received the same treatment.
 
I can't see signing statements as anything other than the President legislating...which I was sure he wasn't supposed to do. Of course, Executive Orders have been used for quite some time by many Presidents for the same purpose of legislation. Those should be restricted as well. But fat chance getting the government to give up power.
 
Rational and reasonable supporters of The Obama are, at present, wondering exactly when the "change" they voted for will arrive.

The partisan, bigoted kool-aid drinkers will defend The Obama no matter what.

Some one who is part of the lunatic extreme far right fringe telling liberals what they should find "rational and reasonable" is amusing.
 
Some one who is part of the lunatic extreme far right fringe telling liberals what they should find "rational and reasonable" is amusing.
So tell me:
Where is the "change"?
 
So tell me:
Where is the "change"?

We are working on health care reform now, which has been badly needed, and Bush did not tackle. That is one change right off the top of my head.
 
We are working on health care reform now, which has been badly needed, and Bush did not tackle. That is one change right off the top of my head.
But, as demonstrated by this instance as well as and several others, there has been NO change, change that was specifically promised by The Obama.

So, are you among the rational and reasonable, or of the partisan bigots?
 
We are working on health care reform now, which has been badly needed, and Bush did not tackle. That is one change right off the top of my head.

This is actually not factually true.

Bush did end up doing something involving reform of Health Care, namely the Perscription Drug plan early on in his presidency. You may disagree with it, or the scope of it, but to say he didn't tackle any time of health care reform is just not factually true.

Now, it is true he did not address it in the later years of his Presidency when the call for it became MUCH greater than it was in 2000 or 2002...however at that time the War in Iraq and the Economy was of greater importance and the public was much louder about it than health care. It was not until 2006-2008, especially 2008, when it became a prime platform component pushed by Democrats that it became a major issue in the minds of the large majority of the public.
 
But, as demonstrated by this instance as well as and several others, there has been NO change, change that was specifically promised by The Obama.

So, are you among the rational and reasonable, or of the partisan bigots?

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.
 
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.

Absolutely correct....

wapoobamabudget1.jpg
 
I've become to see it more as Major League Bush.

You know....

Bush on Steroids

Its almost everything I hated about Bush, with few of the things I liked about him, and then a heap load of extra crap I can't stand.

Hope and Change baby. Hope and Change.

The main difference being, Bush was using common sense to do what is best for the country. PBO is doing what is worst for the country. Either he knows exactly how he's screwing up our nation, or he's just friggin' stupid. Take your pick.
 
The main difference being, Bush was using common sense to do what is best for the country. PBO is doing what is worst for the country. Either he knows exactly how he's screwing up our nation, or he's just friggin' stupid. Take your pick.

Bush and Obama acted in an essentially identical fashion as relates to the topic of this thread. If you disagree with that, explain why. If you want to talk about healthcare or some other unrelated things, please do so elsewhere.
 
Bush and Obama acted in an essentially identical fashion as relates to the topic of this thread.

I have a better idea. How 'bout you post a link where Bush did this exact same thing. Thanks in advance.
 
I have a better idea. How 'bout you post a link where Bush did this exact same thing. Thanks in advance.

John P. Elwood, who served in the Office of Legal Counsel in President George W. Bush’s second term, said the Bush team would probably have reached the same conclusion as the Obama officials about the United Nations statute.

...

Among them, Mr. Bush used signing statements to instruct the State Department to interpret identical restrictions as “advisory” rather than mandatory, and his administration sent officials to a Development Program meeting in January.

You done now?
 
I have a better idea. How 'bout you post a link where Bush did this exact same thing. Thanks in advance.

I"n the new opinion, David Barron, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the statute — a restriction Congress imposed in the State Department’s annual budget bill — “unconstitutionally infringes on the president’s authority to conduct the nation’s diplomacy, and the State Department may disregard it.”

His opinion cites many examples of previous administrations of both parties taking a similar view. Among them, Mr. Bush used signing statements to instruct the State Department to interpret identical restrictions as “advisory” rather than mandatory, and his administration sent officials to a Development Program meeting in January."


I remember folks getting up in arms about this.


Dear leader=Bush + on this issue.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom