Obama Breaks Another Promise

Back when Barack Obama was candidate Obama he took George Bush to task for using signing statements. A signing statement is a note to legislation a President attaches that outlines an objection to the Constitutionality of a particular portion of the bill being signed into law. In some cases Presidents use signing statements to indicate their interpretation of the Constitution and how it applies to a particular portion of a bill.

George W. Bush used a lot of signing statements and the left did not like it one bit. A task force of the American Bar Association said that the use of them to change the meaning of duly enacted law undermines the principle of separation of powers.

Candidate Obama said that Bush was wrong to use them and that he, being a Constitutional professor, would not do so. He said it was no way to govern:

“What George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he’s been saying ‘well I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part,” Obama said last year during a campaign stop. “I’m gonna’ choose to interpret it this way or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going 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.”

You can see the video where candidate Obama says this here.

That all sounds very noble. Though there has been no ruling on the Constitutionality of signing statements Obama makes a good point that the Constitution says a president can sign the bill or veto it (that is in the video). He said that he taught the law and that Bush was using it to make his own rules and enact laws the way he wanted them. Obama concluded by saying he will not use signing statements as a way of getting around Congress. Though signing statements generally raise an objection on a Constitutional matter, Obama said they are an end around.

Obama broke his promise by using a signing statement on a bill he signed.

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.

They would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,” Obama said in the signing statement. The Hill

Obama issued a signing statement and Congress rebuked him for it. Notice carefully what has happened here. On the campaign trail Obama said he would not use signing statements to go around Congress. His signing statement says that what Congress enacted interferes with his authority to conduct business. That might very well be but the whole issue begs this question:

Why didn’t he veto it? As a candidate he pointed out that the only two things a president can do is sign it or veto it. He said George Bush made up laws as he went along and that this was not within the scope of his power. He said it should be signed or vetoed and that he understood the Constitution and would follow it. If a provision of the bill would interfere with his job then he should have vetoed it like he said he would.

Barack Obama talked a slick game when he was a candidate. He has broken promise after promise (though some claim he has never lied and has broken no campaign promises) and now he breaks this one. This is a big one because Bush’s use of signing statements irritated Congress to no end. To the credit of the members of Congress, their vote to rebuke Obama was nearly unanimous. It looks like both parties stuck together on this one. Given that Democrats cover for Obama at every turn, this is quite a big deal.

Then again, Congress never like to see its power taken away.

Well liberals, where is your indignation? Where are the calls for impeachment? Where are the comparisons to royalty and the cries of “foul”? Where is the outrage you had at Bush for this? You should be even more outraged because Obama said he would not do it and then he did.

More and more Obama is doing the same things that George Bush did.

They told me if I voted for McCain I would get Bush’s third term. Looks like they were right.

Big Dog Salute to Stop the ACLU

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

One Response to “Obama Breaks Another Promise”

  1. Blake says:

    Is this on the 158 broken promises, and he is just doing it again, or is this 159?
    It is so hard to keep count, but at this rate, his broken promises are going to resemble Tolstoy’s “WAR AND PEACE” for lengthiness- no surprise there- like all libbies, he has been unnecessarily verbose, seeking to hide his meanings in a jumble of words.