From Mr Warner of the Constitution Club, I found this gem:
By ANNE FLAHERTY (AP) – 1 day agoDemocrats irked by Obama signing statement
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.
Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were “surprised” and “chagrined” by Obama’s declaration in June that he doesn’t have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn’t allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.
Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan’s birthday.
The most utility I can see for signing statements is to get the President’s intentions in signing the law into the record, so that if it is ever challenged in court, the courts can consider the intention of the President as well as the intentions of Congress.
But the whole thing is just thoroughly amusing. Not only does it demonstrate the rank hypocrisy of our 44th President, in doing exactly what he criticized our (much better) 43rd President for having done, but after spending a year and a half running against President Bush, darned if he isn’t becoming just a little bit more like him. 
Brian and Sister Toldjah found another similarity. Brian also noted just how good our 44th President’s promises concerning “transparency” have been.
Sometime in 2014, an historian will write about the one-term Obama Administration — and people reading it will think that, no, this isn’t history, it must be satire.
When BO was running around campaigning (and he still is) the majority fell in love with hope and change, and The One is different than all that preceded him. But Rev. Wright hit the nail on the head after BO threw him under the bus when he said BO is just another politician.
Note the title: “Democrats irked by Obama signing statement”
I wholeheartedly concur! This practice breaches the separation of powers that is critical to the proper functioning of our government.
Dana et al, did you criticize GW Bush for his signing statements?
Amen to that, Perry. I’m assuming that since Dana was okay with Bush’s “war on terror” abuses of power, he’s okay with Obama’s abuses as well, and that since he was okay with the Bush administration’s lack of transparency he’s not going to demand more from BO. I think he’s just pointing out the differences between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, which is certainly a point well taken.
“Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Scoff. That’s so 1700s. Nowadays it’s “take care that the laws say whatever the hell the President wants them to say.” SVFB.
And a signing statement on a bill honoring Reagan’s birthday? What would that even be? “I reserve the right to not blow out candles on Reagan’s birthday cake because I say so”?
Perry, as an et al I criticized Bush for that and a load more. I also don’t agree with “czars” and executive orders not pertaining to emergencies or the military. No matter who the president is.
John, how does it feel to be an ‘et al’?
Your point is something we can agree on, as has happened in the past as well.
And Jeff, unfortunately Obama is turning out to be more like Bush than I ever thought would happen, so on those items I am just as critical.
On the critical issues of healthcare policy, energy policy, and diplomacy policy, I am with Obama. On his lack of transparency, his signing statements, his detainee policy, his war policy, his economic policy, I’m not in agreement. In fact, I feel deceived, based on his not fulfilling some of his campaign rhetoric.
It appears to me that the corporatist conspirators are almost as active with the Dems as they are with the Repubs. A few unelected, wealthy elites appear to continue to run this country. We almost never see them, but we sure do hear them, every day on Fox and talk radio, as their propagandists shout out their slogans.
People need to put on their critical thinking hats!
I’m assuming that since Dana was okay with Bush’s “war on terror” abuses of power, he’s okay with Obama’s abuses as well, and that since he was okay with the Bush administration’s lack of transparency he’s not going to demand more from BO. I think he’s just pointing out the differences between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, which is certainly a point well taken.
It’s just amusing to watch you guys twist yourselves into knots after shouting for eight years that only Republicans would be abusive dictators! The hated George McChimpyHalliburtonHitlerBush was so eeeeevile that only he would do these hated things. Now, your guy is in office and, suddenly, his hollow campaign rhetoric has crashed against reality and Obama’s decided that McChimpyHalliburtonHitlerBush wasn’t so dumb after all.
I love how incoherent you-all get about this stuff, it’s almost impossible to discern what your point is amidst all the froth & spittle
Perry asked:
Actually, I defended them, using the same criteria listed in the main article, that the executive was adding his intentions in signing the legislation to the legal record. As long as that is what they are used for, they are unobjectionable.
But reread the article, Perry: I wasn’t criticizing President Obama’s use of signing statements; I was criticizing his rank hypocrisy in using them when he said that they were inappropriate when he was running for president.
Right, Dana. And that’s not all Obama has buckled on, compared to his campaign rhetoric.
If you’ve never been President, then you don’t know what it is like to be President. I would be more understanding if Obama acknowledged this, admitting some of his rhetoric that he is not now incorporating. If he does not, he loses some credibility with me.
Perry:
Right, Dana. And that’s not all Obama has buckled on, compared to his campaign rhetoric.
If you’ve never been President, then you don’t know what it is like to be President. I would be more understanding if Obama acknowledged this, admitting some of his rhetoric that he is not now incorporating. If he does not, he loses some credibility with me.
Where I come from people who tell me one thing, then do another, we would call them a fraud. Let’s say BO was elected under false pretenses. The Kool-Aid drinkers of Hope and Change got suckered! This administration has the transparency of Sheet Metal and BO isn’t Superman with X-Ray vision.
It’s just amusing to watch you guys twist yourselves into knots after shouting for eight years that only Republicans would be abusive dictators!
Was this before or after you shouted that you molested children as an artistic statement and then attempted to annex the White House and install Hitler’s Brain as dictator?
I mean, if we’re making shit up, we might as well be creative…
If you’ve never been President, then you don’t know what it is like to be President.
Would that liberals had taken this approach eight years ago.
I mean, if we’re making shit up, we might as well be creative…
Come on, Pho, some of the most creative moonbat sites served up that crap for breakfast, lunch and dinner. That’s not even addressing the comments’ sections.
Come on, Pho, some of the most creative moonbat sites served up that crap for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Please provide a link to the sites stating that “only Republicans would be abusive dictators”.
Red herrings or spluttering denials in 3… 2… 1…