NYT: Obama Takes New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws

[ruggerson]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is lowering the volume in a long-running argument between Congress and the executive branch over when, if ever, a president has the power to bypass federal statutes he has signed into law.

Legal scholars said the administration’s new approach, which avoids repeating claims of executive power that the White House has previously voiced, could avoid setting off fights with lawmakers. But the approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard, or to compare the number of laws challenged by President Obama with former President George W. Bush’s record.

In Mr. Obama’s first months in office last year, he followed recent precedent and frequently issued statements, when signing bills into law, that the executive branch could disregard provisions that he considered unconstitutional restraints on executive power.

But Mr. Obama has not issued a signing statement since last summer, when one claim set off a bipartisan uproar in Congress. And the administration has decided that Mr. Obama will sometimes sign bills containing provisions it deems problematic without issuing a signing statement that challenges those sections.

Still, the administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional, especially in cases where it has previously voiced objections elsewhere, officials said.

The White House disclosed its shift when asked why it had not put out a signing statement last month, when Mr. Obama signed a $447 billion spending bill for 2010. It contained several provisions that restricted executive power in ways that the administration had previously asserted were unconstitutional — including in signing statements attached to similar bills and in policy statements it issued about the spending bill as lawmakers drew it up.

“The administration’s views about certain provisions in the omnibus spending bill had previously been publicly communicated,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, “so it wasn’t necessary to duplicate them in a signing statement.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/us/politics/09signing.html?hpw

[highplainsdem]

1. K&R

[undeterred]

2. So the administrations views have the power of law?

Are we subjects of a king?

[denem]

3. The difference is a signing statement is an Assertion of Excecutive Power.

There's no "New Route" in the executive taking an expansive view of i's power under the Constitution, nor Congress acting to restrict the Executive.

What is more significant is how the Executive actually conducts itself. Nixon didn't bother much with Signing Statements or anything else.

Obama, a constitutional lawyer is likely to be one of the more cautious advocates of the Executive's prerogative.

That is not to say that the legacy of the "Unitary Executive" has not permeated through Federal Departments, particularly the DOJ.

[ruggerson]

5. explain to me why

the administration uses the "rule of law" to explain its defense of DOMA in numerous court cases, but feels free to completely ignore the "rule of law" in cases where it unilaterally deems the law unconstitutional.

Why the double standard? Why couldn't they just take the position that DOMA is unconstitutional and proceed accordingly? As the administration itself acknowledges, they are doing just that with other statutes.

[denem]

8. I am not defending the DOJ,

nor advocating that the DOJ be a extension of the Unitary Executive.

[ruggerson]

10. I know you're not

I'm just noting the brazen double standard.

[Karmadillo]

4. L'Etat ce n'est pas vous, suckers.

nt

[katandmoon]

6. So in other words, while Bush told us which laws he'd ignore, Obama will make us guess.

[ruggerson]

7. yes, apparently they acknowledge they are now doing this surreptitiously

[denem]

9. No. The question is not what an Administrations says, but what it actually does.

Bush's signing statements were the least of it.

[highplainsdem]

11. Exactly.

[inna]

18. exactly what it sounds like.

wtf??

[Kokonoe]

12. Seems like a gentleman's agreement to disregard laws for the executive branch.

A bipartisan relationship between executive branch administrations not to prosecute themselves.

[ThomWV]

13. Ask any Republican or neo-Democrat," who needs laws when you have leaders?"

And with that attitude we fail.

[flyarm]

14. oh boy..but we are not supposed toget upset about this shit because Obama is pres?

is that right ?????

Ok so i am now supposed to get my jollies off because this is being done by a democratic president..forget that i was pissed as shit when Bush did this shit..but i am supposed to contain myslf and stfu because a democratic president is doing this illegal shit right??

Isn't that what some here are bitching about..that we should just STFU when our own is doing this and fucking all our laws..and completely fucking the rule sof law..and our constitution..i am supposed to party hardy becuase it is a Dem doing it..isn't that the shit we see daily here by a certain group that doesn't want us getting pissed as hell??

Well I am fucking pissed..and no amount of propaganda and no amount of intimidation will shut me up about it!

and i have that stinking feeling..new boss same as.........

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Now

tell me how you really feel!!! :rofl: :hi: :hug:

[flyarm]

19. I know..but lo be it for me to say.."I told people so" ...but wtf do I know?

and I am past being so angry i could spit..i have spit it all out..there is nothing left..

speaking of left..what happened to the "left"? we are a bunch of pansy's now!

hi honey!!..just another bout of my anger coming out!!..

:mad: :mad: :puke: :puke: :wtf:


:hi: :hi: :shrug: :loveya: :hug: :fistbump:

[highplainsdem]

15. kick

[inna]

17. WTFF????

:head explodes: