Jay Carney says President Obama was never against signing statements, just when President Bush “abused” them. In the press conference, Jay Carney seems to morph with John Kerry, who believed he had found safe political ground by noting that he voted for something before voting against it. For his part, Obama morphed into George W. Bush a while back on civil liberties and constitutional issues.
As on so many issues of civil liberties and constitutional law, Obama appears determined to legitimate and expand on the Bush policies. There appears to be little concern over the direct conflicts in his positions in running for the office and his positions as president. The White House is now relying almost entirely on a cult of personality for liberals to ignore that fact that Obama now stands against many of the defining liberal and libertarian principles.
Carney was confronted over the Bush-like refusal of Obama to comply with federal law and to use signing statements. His response is truly Kerryesque:
“His concern was with what he saw as an abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration. So that the positions he took in signing statements on the budget bill entirely consistent with that position, you need to retain the right to, as president, to be able to issue those signing statements, but obviously they should not be abused.”
Here is what he said when running for this office in 2008:
“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 goes 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,” then-Senator Obama said as a presidential candidate in 2008.
Carney’s statement is, however consistent with the White House approach in other areas. Obama has continued many of the policies of Bush in blocking the investigation of torture, fighting public interest lawsuits on privacy etc. The single consistent position appears to be “I am Barack Obama so it is better when I do it.” What is remarkable is that many Democrats appear to agree from their silence. Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer have even publicly praised Obama for his undeclared war in Libya. After all, it is Barack Obama and he was against undeclared wars before he was for them.
Source: RealClearPolitics
Jonathan Turley
Signing statements are not law and ought not to be given any legal significance whatsoever. Although I am not familiar with their history, they have largely become a means by which the President let’s us know which parts of a statute he will ignore. However, I have not been able to find a “King’s X” clause in the oath of office.
Signing statements are public proclamations of defiance intended to concentrate power in the executive branch at the expense of the legislative. They fit in nicely with the theory of the unitary executive, the authoritarian doctrine that has become especially popular with presidents as soon as they assume office.
In my view, they are a pox on republican government and ought to be denounced loudly and repeatedly. And, under the right circumstances, they should provide grounds for impeachment.
HenMan said: ‘I would be interested in hearing from one of our lawyers on the legal standing of “signing statements”.’
I’d also like to know about the history of how they have been used – which presidents have done this the most? (I suspect the signing statement graph will have an unusually large peak during the last decade…)
I voted democrat and all I got was a lousy republican. I do have to thank President Obama for opening my eyes in regards to the democratic party. They are just republicans who are better at lying.
At least the republicans are honest about hating the vast majority of the people of the United States.
I think that mahtso’s questions about signing statements were glossed over and should be examined. I am not a lawyer, so I have only a layman’s understanding of the law, but in my reading of the Constitution I have never seen anything about “signing statements” or any indication that they have any legal standing whatsoever. The U.S. court system and ultimately the Supreme Court decides on the Constitutional legality of bills passed by both Houses of Congress, NOT the president. As far as I know, the President’s opinion expressed in a “signing statement” has no more standing in law than my opinion expressed in a comment on the Turley Blog. The President has no more authority than I do to amend laws or make up his own laws. I would be interested in hearing from one of our lawyers on the legal standing of “signing statements”.
IMHO the best way that I’m telling the difference between the two parties lately is that one party will kiss you first.
Swarthmore mom
1, April 19, 2011 at 1:27 pm
I think the demise of the middle class started under Reagan.
===================================================
I would agree with you on that … in my opinion, Nixon was pro-middle class and felt uncomfortable in upper class society.
SwM,
Yes, I did. A great many public service workers are republican … or were republican. If they are going to remain republican then they are very careful to note that they are NOT TeaParty Republicans.
Kasich is viewed as a TeaParty Republican … a usurper, if you will. By viewing him as a teabagger, they are quite comfortable in protesting against him.
Those who are aligned with the Democratic Party don’t make that careful distinction … neither do the Independents.
Over the last three months teabaggers have announced protests in all sorts of Ohio towns but only a few individuals actually show … and by few I mean any where from 2 to 12. They stand around for awhile with a couple of signs and then disappear not to be seen again.
Jill,
You keep missing my point. Did I ever absolve the Democrats of the things they’ve done wrong? I’ve read all of Taibbi’s articles and books. (I already left a link to that Taibbi article on another thread.) I know what’s going on in Congress. I still happen to believe the Republicans and Tea Partiers are worse than the Democrats by several degrees. You disagree. We have a difference of opinion. Let’s leave it at that.
Some questions for you:
– Which party is trying to dismantle the financial reform bill that was passed?
– Which party is trying to take away a woman’s right to choose?
– Which party wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare?
– Which party wants to spend millions of dollars defending DOMA?
– Which party is anti-union and trying to do away with collective bargaining for public sector workers?
Here is one of the posts I wrote that includes links to several of Taibbi’s other articles:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/09/fed-up-a-post-about-ben-bernanke-senator-bernie-sanders-and-the-bailout%e2%80%a6with-a-song-parody/
I think the demise of the middle class started under Reagan.
Elaine,
I don’t agree with your last statement. If you look very carefully you will see Republicans and Democrats work hand in hand on all matters, economic. I think the film, “Inside Job” does an excellent job of showing this. There’s also an article just out by Matt Taibbi that may be of interest to you. These actions have all occurred under the Democratic watch. They have gutted the middle class on down.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/16-1
Elaine,
Great video of Roy Zimmerman. It was hilarious!
I agree with your comments about the lesser of two evils position that progressives find themselves in. We do object to many Obama decisions and positions, but when you look at the alternative, there isn’t much of an option politically. We have to keep pressing Obama to be the Obama the candidate and hold his feet to the fire whenever necessary. We have to criticize and protest bad decisions and stand up for our principles.
Women will be an endangered species if any of the current Teapublican candidates ascend to the White House. The middle class and unions and our way of life will be threatened if any of the current Teapublican candidates win the White House. The Rich will pay zero taxes just like many of the corporations who are overburdened by taxes already! Social Security will be privatized if it exists at all and Medicare and health care will be strictly a pay as you go system. There are plenty of reasons why Obama should be criticized and rebuked, but there are many more why he or another “liberal” or “progressive” needs to be in the White House.
The focus seems to be on protesting the republican tea party governors now. Did you meet a lot of republicans when you were at the state capitol, Blouise?
Elaine,
http://volokh.com/2011/04/18/the-anti-war-movement-and-democratic-political-fans/
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mheaney/Partisan_Dynamics_of_Contention.pdf
Judge for yourself.
Jill,
I’m not getting my point across to you. I don’t think you’re attacking me.
I blame all who are guilty for getting our country into the mess it’s in–not just Republicans. Democrats gave Bush the votes to go to war in Iraq. Obama and the Democrats have caved on a number of things that I wish they hadn’t.
That said, some of the things that Republicans are trying to do and some of the legislation that Republicans are trying to pass in Congress and in state legislatures–which Tea Partiers support–has got to be seen as far worse than what the Democrats are doing.
Now what…
The agencies aren’t supposed to have records that don’t correspond to an authorized purpose. That is one reason why the budgets are supposed to be very specific and not to include slush funds.
Elaine,
I understand and agree with everything you just wrote. I know I affirmed yesterday that you were a social justice liberal. I will reaffirm that today, gladly. I am not attacking you. It sounds like you think I am doing that. I’m not. I am trying to suggest a way out of the mess our nation is in. First, recognize that reactionary ideas have permeated our entire society, (such as the article on torture shows). To think of them as belonging solely to the tea party or Republicans is a mistake, they are in Democratic and liberal circles as well–they really have permeated our society. So, how to respond to these inculcated reactionary ideas? Ignore party and pay attention to actions. Respond solely to actions, no matter who engages in them.
I also agree that teens and many other people now think torture is acceptable. We have both Bush/Cheney and Obama to blame for that as well as Congress and the media. That is sad, it is horrible and somehow we’ve got to turn it around. I think you are trying to turn it around. So am I. I’m not your enemy. I don’t consider you my enemy.
For a little comic relief–I give you Roy Zimmerman singing Do You Know How Hard It Is to Be a Liberal?
Jill,
You think I’m not getting your point–and I think you’re not getting my point.
I’m a liberal. I do not ignore the fact that Obama has continued on with many of the same abhorrent policies put in place by the Bush Administration. There are many, many liberals like me who do not. No REAL liberal would support such policies.
I think part of our country’s problem has been caused by the press and the media. They gave Bush a “buy” on a lot of things. They are now ignoring some of the things that Obama is doing. Where is their outrage at torture, the indefinite confinement of prisoners, the treatment of Bradley Manning, and to what is/has been going on in this country?
We have journalists like Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Jeremy Scahill, Jane Mayer, and some others speaking out–but most in the mainstream/corporate media are more concerned about their own professional careers than about issues of great import that are having a terribly negative impact on this country and its reputation.
*****
Here’s a story for you:
Teenagers Now Look Favorably On Torture Because The Media Taught Them It Was Morally Acceptable
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/teens-torture-media-red-cross_n_848751.html
Glenn Greenwald recommends this article on his twitter page: “The Wall Street Journal website has an interesting summary of a recent study tracing the decline of the anti-war movement over the last few years, despite the deepening involvement of the United States in multiple wars:
President Obama inherited two wars, neither of which has ended—and the United States is now involved in military action in Libya—yet the anti-war movement has all but vanished. Why?
The answer, according to a new research article, has to do with the complex relationship between non-partisan activists and those who identify as Democrats. In short, many antiwar Democrats saw the election of President Barack Obama as a sufficient victory for their cause and withdrew from the streets.
The researchers conducted 5,398 surveys at 27 antiwar protests from January 2007 through December 2009. They also interviewed movement leaders and conducted ethnographic observations. The largest protest during that period occurred on Jan. 27, 2007, and drew over 100,000 people, by the researchers’ count. By October 2009, however, protests were drawing mere hundreds (which is about where they’ve remained).
What changed? During the period studied, the proportion of protesters who identified themselves as Democrats dropped from about 50% to roughly 20%. The rest of the protesters identified with no party or, less often, a third party. The proportion of third-party activists grew over time.
Both the Democratic Party and the antiwar movement gained advantages from their interaction, the researchers argue. But Democrats viewed the election of President Obama as a victory per se, while nonpartisan protesters were more attuned to policy continuities. Such continuities as—well, the wars not ending, and the one in Afghanistan escalating.
As I have explained elsewhere, many people, especially committed partisans, tend to act as “political fans”: processing political information in a highly biased way that overvalues anything that confirms their views or partisan loyalties, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that cuts against them.
One manifestation of this tendency is that committed partisans will tolerate behavior from their own party that they would be among the first to condemn if the opposition did it. When “our” side does the kinds of things that we condemn the other party for, partisans tend to ignore it, downplay it, or pretend that there is a meaningful distinction between the two cases even when there isn’t. This is similar to the way that sports fans denounce cheating or bad calls that go against their team, but ignore such things when they help the team win.
Many anti-war activists who are also partisan Democrats are willing to tolerate, if not actually support, aggressive military action undertaken by Obama that they would not have vehemently opposed under a Republican president. In the immediate aftermath of Obama’s election, it might have been plausible to believe that Obama would quickly cut back on US military action abroad, even though he had actually promised to escalate the Afghanistan war during the 2008 election. By now, however, it is clear that Obama intends no such thing. Indeed, he has actually entered another war — this time without congressional authorization, and despite the fact that Muammar Qaddafi’s regime poses little threat to US national security interests, and does not have nearly as extensive a record of mass murder as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq.
A few antiwar liberal Democrats, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, have indeed denounced Obama’s war policies. But most have either kept quiet or actually supported the president. As the article by Michael Heaney and Fabio Rojas shows, this reaction is in sharp contrast to that of antiwar activists who are not also Democratic partisans. The latter have consistently opposed the various wars under both Obama and Bush, and have correctly recognized the substantial degree of continuity between the two.
Of course, this kind of partisan bias is far from limited to liberal Democrats. During the Bush presidency, many Republicans tolerated a vast expansion of federal spending and regulation that they would never have accepted from a Democrat. Earlier, the famous “Nixon in China” phenomenon arose because most Republicans were willing to accept Nixon’s cosying up to a mass-murdering Communist dictatorship just a few years after its worst crimes, even though they would not have tolerated similar policies from a liberal Democrat. There were principled conservative Republicans who denounced Nixon and Bush. But the overall level of Republican opposition was far lower than it would have been had a Democrat done the exact same thing.”