The Off Topic Topic

[Valmy]

Of course they can a problem with that.  That's the whole point.  The people who claimed they have a problem with what they regard as violations of the Constitution when Bush was doing it all of a sudden don't seem to have as much of a problem with what they regard as violations of the Constitution.

Nah just the ones who were Democrats.  But we already knew they were full of it. 

Sort of like when Republicans bitch about fiscal responsibility and wanting to reduce government.

[Valmy]

Bad people doing bad things is reprehensible.

Good people doing bad things, for the good of everyone, is usually excusable.

If we are going to rely on the goodness of people we do not need a government or laws or any of this stuff.

[Caliga]

I have now experienced the ghost pepper.   It's fucking incredible.  I love it.

[Josquius]

Is there a story to that picture?

[MadImmortalMan]

Is there a story to that picture?

http://sportadore.com/Away?u=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F3Jan4nSO

[katmai]

My numbers up....


Have to go to court and sit around all day tomorrow.

[Ed Anger]

My numbers up....


Have to go to court and sit around all day tomorrow.

[Ideologue]

My numbers up....


Have to go to court and sit around all day tomorrow.

Stop killing hookers.

[katmai]

My numbers up....


Have to go to court and sit around all day tomorrow.

Stop killing hookers.

What kind of law advice is that!

[Ideologue]

Stop getting caught killing hookers.

[Razgovory]

There is a fucking June bug in here!  I really, really, really hate June bugs.  And it's April!  C'mon!

[Sheilbh]

Of course they can a problem with that.  That's the whole point.  The people who claimed they have a problem with what they regard as violations of the Constitution when Bush was doing it all of a sudden don't seem to have as much of a problem with what they regard as violations of the Constitution.

The objection wasn't to Bush issuing signing statements but the number issued and that they were used to reinterpret parts of the law and object to them on constitutional grounds rather than veto them.  No-one objects to signing statements per se.  They go back to the 19th century and are entirely fine.  That's why the American Bar Association wasn't happy with the way Bush used them.  In fairness Clinton and Bush I had also done this but they did so on a far smaller scale than W.  I believe they challenged the constitutionality of an Act or reinterpreted it within a signing statement less than a quarter of the amount W did.  I think W challenged or reinterpreted over 700 provisions through signing statement.

So far Obama's issued far less (around 20) which is one reason people aren't worried.  And he's not been challenging the constitutionality of laws or significantly changing their interpretation, from Politifact in 2009 and 2011:

It's worth noting that Obama has not used signing statements in the bold and sweeping way that President Bush did. Bush, for instance, said that his role as commander in chief meant that he could ignore the wishes of Congress — expressed in several bills that passed both chambers and were signed by the president — that U.S. troops be kept out of combat against Marxist rebels in Colombia funded by the drug trade.

So after his initial signing statements in his first six months in office, Obama has a mixed record.
 
Obama "has violated his pledge, on paper," said Andrew Rudalevige, a Dickinson College political scientist who has studied the issue. But, Rudalevige added, Obama "has not used signing statements in the same policy-oriented manner as his predecessor."

Unlike Bush, Obama has not picked his battles on major issues such as the use of torture. Rather, he"s quibbled over the seating requirements for a commission that virtually no one's heard of (and stipulated to an advisory role rather than a binding role for Congress). He's laid down limits on what his subordinates will tell a panel that lacks any binding legislative power. And he's refused to let Congress dictate specific negotiating positions in foreign policy.

Indeed, Obama's statements were "conventional assertions of executive autonomy," rather than his own policy agenda, said John Woolley, a University of California-Santa Barbara political scientist who has studied presidential powers.

Obama's actions are "routine as far as how the signing statement had been used prior to the Bush II administration," added Christopher Kelley, a political scientist at Miami University of Ohio and a specialist in signing statements. "From this standpoint I have seen nothing that Obama has done that is out of the main, nor in violation of his promise."

Woolley agrees. "In terms of the things he objects to about legislation, Obama's statements are not really all that different from those of his predecessors" other than Bush. ... These statements are all precise examples of 'using signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives' — exactly as he promised."

"President Obama used a signing statement to rail against the limitations in the law, but not to say he would not obey it -- nor, as his predecessor almost certainly would have done, did he say he would obey it only to the extent it was compatible with his powers as commander in chief and/or as head of the unitary executive branch," said Andrew Rudalevige, professor in the Department of Political Science at Dickinson College. "Frankly, the use of title-specific posts in the legislation seems designed to be largely symbolic. Why couldn't an 'Assistant to the President" advise the President on the same things that the 'Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change" could?"

"I think his objections to the 'czar" provisions of recent legislation are both consistent to his campaign pledge and his memorandum on the use of the signing statement, and it is clearly consistent with previous presidents -- dating at least to the Reagan administration -- about Congress meddling in executive branch affairs," said Miami University's Kelley. " In addition, you have to ask what is being violated? There are no persons in any of these positions at present, and probably in most, there never will be."

So the reason people aren't outraged is that not all signing statements are equal.

[Barrister]

My numbers up....


Have to go to court and sit around all day tomorrow.

You know what to do.

[Ideologue]

NULLIFY.

[Admiral Yi]

No one is not many people Shelf.