[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

New World Order
See other New World Order Articles

Title: Obama says, "Despite laws I can do what I want!!!
Source: The Daily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/o ... i-can-do-what-i-want-on-czars/
Published: Apr 17, 2011
Author: Johnathon Strong
Post Date: 2011-04-17 09:01:30 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 10943
Comments: 20

In marked contrast to vows as a candidate not to use presidential signing statements as “an end run around Congress,” President Obama released a statement on the just-signed spending bill saying despite the law’s restrictions on “czars,” he will “construe” the law not to interfere with “presidential prerogatives.”

The move is an aggressive power play by Obama to gain an added advantage from the deal struck a week ago between the president, Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to narrowly avert government shutdown.

The legislation prohibits government money being spent on four Obama “czars,” newly created positions with far-reaching sway over federal agencies but facing no confirmation vote in the Senate.

However, some of the czars banned in the bill have already stepped down, and it is unclear whether replacements will be appointed.

Obama in his signing statement says the provision in the legislation prohibiting funding for the salaries of the four czars runs afoul of the president’s “well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority.”

The signing statement vaguely refers to an constitutional line that might have been crossed.

“Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the statement says.

“Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives,” the statement says.

A spokesman for Boehner, Michael Steel, said “It’s not surprising that the White House, having bypassed Congress to empower these ‘Czars’ is objecting to eliminating them.”

As a candidate for president in 2008, Obama blasted former President George W. Bush for his aggressive use of signing statements to alter how laws would be implemented after he signed them.

“Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But 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. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” Obama said.

“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 ten 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,” Obama said.

The signing statement on the spending bill, H.R. 1473, also contains a long section on the law’s provisions on Guantanamo Bay, which generally ban Obama from closing the prison there.

Obama says in the statement the provisions could harm “national security” by interfering with “delicate negotiations.”

However, rather than assert presidential power to invalidate those parts of the law, the signing statement only says Obama will work to repeal them and will seek to “mitigate their effects.”

Statement by the President on H.R. 1473

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1473, the “Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 201183;.

Section 1112 of the Act bars the use of funds for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States, and section 1113 bars the use of funds for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 to transfer detainees to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met. Section 1112 represents the continuation of a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. The prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation and must be among the options available to us. Any attempt to deprive the executive branch of that tool undermines our Nation’s counterterrorism efforts and has the potential to harm our national security.

With respect to section 1113 of the Act, the restrictions on the transfer of detainees to the custody or effective control of foreign countries interfere with the authority of the executive branch to make important and consequential foreign policy and national security determinations regarding whether and under what circumstances such transfers should occur in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. We must have the ability to act swiftly and to have broad flexibility in conducting our negotiations with foreign countries. The executive branch has sought and obtained from countries that are prospective recipients of Guantanamo detainees assurances that they will take or have taken measures reasonably designed to be effective in preventing, or ensuring against, returned detainees taking action to threaten the United States or engage in terrorist activities. Consistent with existing statutes, the executive branch has kept the Congress informed about these assurances and notified the Congress prior to transfers. Requiring the executive branch to certify to additional conditions would hinder the conduct of delicate negotiations with foreign countries and therefore the effort to conclude detainee transfers in accord with our national security.

Despite my continued strong objection to these provisions, I have signed this Act because of the importance of avoiding a lapse in appropriations for the Federal Government, including our military activities, for the remainder of fiscal year 2011.

Nevertheless, my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future.

Section 2262 of the Act would prohibit the use of funds for several positions that involve providing advice directly to the President. The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority. The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it.

Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.

BARACK OBAMA

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: CZ82 (#0)

As a candidate for president in 2008, Obama blasted former President George W. Bush for his aggressive use of signing statements to alter how laws would be implemented after he signed them.

“Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But 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. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” Obama said.

“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.

Signing statements are as dangerous and unconstitutional as the 'line item veto' power which some presidents have wanted but never acquired, so far that is.

The executive has no power or authority to make law. Signing statements are used, not only to do an end run around Congress, but to do an end run around the basic Constitutional concept of separation of powers.

We The People  posted on  2011-04-17   9:19:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: We The People (#1)

Signing statements are as dangerous and unconstitutional as the 'line item veto' power which some presidents have wanted but never acquired, so far that is.

Line item Veto, now there's a sore subject with a lot of people (kinda like a hemmorrhoid).....

In the right hands it's a good tool, in the wrong hands it would be a nightmare.. I personally don't think you will ever see it, but you never know. The only thing currently available to the president is just refusing to sign the bill until some things are taken out....

"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning

CZ82  posted on  2011-04-17   9:40:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: CZ82, Brain S (#0)

Another impeachable offense pussyboy Brian S.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-04-17   10:57:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: We The People (#1)

The executive has no power or authority to make law. Signing statements are used, not only to do an end run around Congress, but to do an end run around the basic Constitutional concept of separation of powers.

Don't EO's accomplish the same thing more or less?

#1. To: Goldi-Lox (#0) I used the wrong link. yukon posted on 2011-03-27 1:40:47 ET

Liberator  posted on  2011-04-17   15:47:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: CZ82 (#2)

In the right hands it's [line item veto' power] a good tool, in the wrong hands it would be a nightmare.. I personally don't think you will ever see it, but you never know.

During the last ten years we've already seen too many abuses of power by and from the goob that we've assumed weren't possible.

#1. To: Goldi-Lox (#0) I used the wrong link. yukon posted on 2011-03-27 1:40:47 ET

Liberator  posted on  2011-04-17   15:50:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Liberator (#4)

The executive has no power or authority to make law. Signing statements are used, not only to do an end run around Congress, but to do an end run around the basic Constitutional concept of separation of powers.

Don't EO's accomplish the same thing more or less?

They do. Great point.

We The People  posted on  2011-04-18   10:38:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: CZ82 (#2)

Line item Veto, now there's a sore subject with a lot of people (kinda like a hemmorrhoid).....

In the right hands it's a good tool, in the wrong hands it would be a nightmare.. I personally don't think you will ever see it, but you never know. The only thing currently available to the president is just refusing to sign the bill until some things are taken out....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

the line item veto was struck down by the supreme court in 1998 in a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto.

Thank God. Reagan wanted the line item veto, believe it or not.

We The People  posted on  2011-04-18   10:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: All (#7)

Correction: The line-item-veto legislation sponsored by Republicans in the 1990s — and briefly wielded by Clinton — was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1998.

We The People  posted on  2011-04-18   10:48:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: CZ82 (#2)

Barack Obama seeks line-item veto

www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37711.html

So, on Monday, the Obama team proposed a line-item veto with a twist: The president would have a limited time after a bill is passed to submit a package of rescissions that must be considered by Congress in straight up or down votes.

Many Presidents would rather be King.

We The People  posted on  2011-04-18   10:51:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: We The People (#8)

The Supreme Court has become so politicized in the last few decades I cannot view their rulings in light of other circumstances. They have been brought into the political arena where before they were rightly and intentionally above the fray. Each faction of the unified party seek to end-run the Constitution by getting their people on the bench. That Latin thing most recently.

Actually, I feel sorry for you, yu-klown. Growing up with Sally as a mother would probably turn anyone queer.

Rudgear  posted on  2011-04-18   10:54:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: We The People (#6)

The executive has no power or authority to make law. Signing statements are used, not only to do an end run around Congress, but to do an end run around...

And then we have judges single-handedly overturning the will of the people, altering laws of sorts regarding Issue & Referenda.

This is yet another way the Left executes its "end run around," backdoors its agenda, and defies "laws" that The People vote for.

#1. To: Goldi-Lox (#0) I used the wrong link. yukon posted on 2011-03-27 1:40:47 ET

Liberator  posted on  2011-04-18   15:08:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: We The People (#7) (Edited)

Reagan wanted the line item veto, believe it or not.

I remember...

With the wrong President (Bubba/Bush/0bama) it's a license to steal - or as you rightly put it a few posts down, it makes them "Kings."

#1. To: Goldi-Lox (#0) I used the wrong link. yukon posted on 2011-03-27 1:40:47 ET

Liberator  posted on  2011-04-18   15:10:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Liberator (#11)

And then we have judges single-handedly overturning the will of the people

That's what judges are supposed to do when the will of the people conflicts with the constitution.

America...My Kind Of Place...

war  posted on  2011-04-18   15:10:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: war (#13)

That's what judges are supposed to do when the will of the people conflicts with the constitution.

Sound great in theory...But Gay/Leftist judges in California don't GAS about the Charmin, aka the "Constitution."

#1. To: Goldi-Lox (#0) I used the wrong link. yukon posted on 2011-03-27 1:40:47 ET

Liberator  posted on  2011-04-18   15:13:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Liberator (#14)

Sound great in theory...But Gay/Leftist judges in California don't GAS about the Charmin, aka the "Constitution."

Example?

America...My Kind Of Place...

war  posted on  2011-04-18   15:24:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: war (#15) (Edited)

Try on Proposition 8 for example (in Kaleefornia.)

#1. To: Goldi-Lox (#0) I used the wrong link. yukon posted on 2011-03-27 1:40:47 ET

Liberator  posted on  2011-04-18   15:33:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Liberator (#16)

Poor example for you.

The will of the people is to abridge the rights of others? Of COURSE that should be overturned.

America...My Kind Of Place...

war  posted on  2011-04-18   15:58:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: We The People (#7)

Thank God. Reagan wanted the line item veto, believe it or not.

He was fighting Liberal House and Senate so I can see why. If he would have had it, his budgets might not have been near as high, he would have cut out all the Libtard BS.....

"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning

CZ82  posted on  2011-04-18   19:21:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: CZ82 (#18)

If he would have had it, his budgets might not have been near as high, he would have cut out all the Libtard BS.....

He also would have cut out the basic constitutional concept of separation of powers.

We The People  posted on  2011-04-19   13:20:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: We The People (#19)

He also would have cut out the basic constitutional concept of separation of powers.

Why???

"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning

CZ82  posted on  2011-04-19   14:01:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com