Obama Issues Signing Statement On Spending Bill


Well Democrats were highly critical of Bush signing his signing statements on several of bills. (which is unconstitution…the president can’t just say he’s not going to obey part of a law because he doesn’t like it…..he can veto the entire bill only)…..now Obama is doing it and do we hear an outcry?

Democrats often criticized the Bush White House for its use of the presidential signing statement, a means by which the president can reject provisions of a bill he deems unconstitutional without vetoing the entire legislation. Now the approach is back.

President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.

The Founding Fathers provided in Article III of the constitution the president’s remedy. Under Article III, should the president disagree with provisions of legislation passed by Congress, he can veto the legislation, thereby challenging Congress to muster a two-thirds super-majority in each House to override the president’s objections.

The move came two days after Mr. Obama ordered a review of his predecessor’s signing statements and said he would rein in the use of such declarations.

Obama issues signing statement on spending bill

WASHINGTON—Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Barack Obama issued such a directive himself.

Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill that includes billions for items known as earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to projects in their districts. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to curb such spending.

He also issued a “signing statement” in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised “raise constitutional concerns.” Among them are provisions that Obama said would “unduly interfere” with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.

Another provision, Obama said, would limit his discretion to choose who performs specific functions in military missions.

On Monday, Obama ordered a review of former President George W. Bush’s guidelines for implementing bills passed by Congress — the signing statements.

Bush often issued statements when he signed bills, objecting to parts of the legislation. Critics said the statements often showed government officials how to get around a law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.

“There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused,” Obama wrote Monday in a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies. “Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements.”

At the same time, however, Obama did not rule out issuing any signing statements, which have been used for centuries. Rather, he ordered his administration to work with Congress to inform lawmakers about concerns over legality before legislation ever reaches his desk. He also pledged to use caution and restraint when writing his own signing statements, and said he would rely on Justice Department guidance when doing so.

“With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities,” Obama pledged.

Read at Boston.com

Obama, Congress consider “procedural tactic” to ram through climate change bill

Comments Off on Obama, Congress consider “procedural tactic” to ram through climate change bill

Who would have thunk it? Here comes those “carbon credit taxes” Steve has been talking about forever!

Obama, Congress consider “procedural tactic” to ram through climate change bill

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama’s top budget official, are considering a procedural tactic that could give them the power to ram a climate-change and energy bill through Congress.

The administration and Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hope to avoid obstruction by the Republicans and centrist Democrats who fear the potential economic impact of legislation to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions.

The tactic is being discussed because of the dramatic impact of the bill: Collection of “climate revenues” from a proposed cap-and-trade system could represent a major source of future revenue for the federal government.

Democratic leaders are considering a process in the Senate known as “budget reconciliation,” meant to fine-tune the government’s expenditures and revenue later in the year, which needs only 51 votes compared with the standard 60 needed for contentious legislation.

Some leaders see the alternative as an option of last resort. Yet even having this option under consideration is raising the ire of many lawmakers and reveals how serious Mr. Obama is about passing a bill that axes greenhouse-gas emissions.

“Reconciliation is not the first place we would go, but we’re at the beginning of the discussion and aren’t going to take anything off the table at this point,” Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Tuesday after a budget hearing in the Capitol.

An aide with a senior Democrat said lawmakers are considering the option simply because “we want to get it passed, that’s our strategy.” Mr. Obama will face more than a handful of Democrats who already have voiced objections to the president’s stringent climate-change proposal.

In Mr. Obama’s fiscal-year 2010 budget outlined last month, the administration said it expected to start collecting “climate revenues” from a cap-and-trade system in 2012. Based on a very conservative price estimate of $20 a ton, Mr. Obama hopes to glean at least $646 billion by 2020 from the program, which would represent a significant future source of revenue for the federal government.

That revenue would be raised by a 100% auction of carbon credits — the right to emit greenhouse gases — but only about $15 billion a year would go toward funding low-carbon energy technologies, according to the Obama plan.

The Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), said slipping the climate bill into the budget-reconciliation process may be the easiest route. The procedure also could be used for other controversial energy provisions that could mandate renewable-energy production and give greater federal authority to site electricity transmission.

When Mr. Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush used the budget-reconciliation process to push through his tax cuts in 2001, some Democrats were outraged, accusing the administration of bypassing the democratic process.

(So what do the Democrats call it when Obama does it?)

Leaders in Mr. Obama’s own party are warning about the tactic.

Read at Wall Street Journal.com

Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case

1 Comment

Here’s an interesting article in Worldnet Daily.com today….That at a meeting Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia suggest you need “4” to have a hearing of your lawsuit. Suggesting that one of the four “conservatist” judges was voting against the eligibility cases of Obama each time.

Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama’s eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

While the requests have been heard “in conference” by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote.  The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

No explanations on the court’s response to the Obama citizenship issue have been offered until now.

Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood “right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them.”

She said, “I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency.”

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

“I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama’s stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks,” she said. “I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama’s strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

“Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.

“He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four,” she said.

She then bought Scalia’s book and waited in line to get it autographed.

“I gave him the books to sign and asked, ‘Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate.’ He said, ‘Bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.'”

Taitz’ latest effort is a case of Quo Warranto submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”

The plaintiffs allege Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before Jan. 20, 2009.

“Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3,” the document said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

“She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.'”

Taitz said Americans should flood Holder’s office with calls, e-mails and faxes, urging him to take action on the case.

Read the entire article @ Worldnet Daily.com