« | »

Obama Uses Signing Statement On Czars

From an unfazed Politico:

Obama to ignore ‘czar’ ban

By: Robin Bravender
April 17, 2011

President Barack Obama is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending package that would ban several top White House advisory posts.

House Republicans tacked on language to the contentious spending bill to cut the salaries for four so-called czars — policy advisers appointed to assist the president on health care, climate change, autos and manufacturing, and urban affairs.

But in a signing statement issued Friday, Obama said he’s not obligated to comply.

"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," the statement said.

"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."

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. So Congress can defund anything not granted to the other branches by the Constitution. And no Czars are mentioned in the Constitution, the last time we checked..

Moreover, lest we forget, Mr. Obama constantly attacked President Bush for his signing statements throughout his campaign for the White House. (See the YouTube clip above.) Even though he began to employ them for his own uses as early as July of last year.

And never mind that Mr. Bush’s signing statements always involved matters of vital interest, such as funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were not matters of petty power and pure spite, such as this is.

The anti-czar language in the spending bill marked a victory for Republicans and conservative pundits, who accused the administration of giving unelected bureaucrats too much power within the White House. But the language didn’t appear to have any immediate impact on Obama’s staff.

Energy and climate adviser Carol Browner resigned earlier this year; health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle was promoted to deputy White House chief of staff; Obama’s urban affairs adviser, Adolfo Carrión [sic], left the White House to become a regional director for the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the White House said auto and manufacturing adviser Ron Bloom wouldn’t be affected by the language.

In other words, as we have previously noted, the Democrats gave the GOP the heads of the Czars who were already leaving. But that wasn’t good enough.

Mr. Obama had to poke the Republicans in the eye some more. Even if it once again exposes his hypocrisy. Even though this means he is once again reneging on a deal he had just agreed to.

How can anyone negotiate with a man who will not keep his word?

For the record, here is a typical report from the early days of the Obama administration, via the Los Angeles Times:

Obama rejects Bush’s signing statements

By Frank James
March 10, 2009

Reporting from Washington — In another effort to undo acts by the previous administration, President Obama issued a memo Monday instructing executive branch officials to ignore Bush administration signing statements, the written assertions presidents sometimes make when signing bills that raise constitutional questions.

At the same time, Obama cited the guidelines he would follow in issuing his own signing statements.

He signaled that, unlike President George W. Bush, he would not use signing statements to do end runs around Congress

Words. Just words.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, April 18th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “Obama Uses Signing Statement On Czars”

  1. proreason says:

    Why doesn’t he use a signing statement to nullify the constitution and just get it over with?

  2. tranquil.night says:

    How’s that Change in Conversation working out for you, RINO rubes? Still negotiating in good faith, are we?

  3. oldpuppydixie says:

    Hussein and the rest of the radical, America-hating left know that they are, after all, only dealing with REPUBLICANS…a weak, spineless smattering of political panderers and weasel-hearted hangers on, generally delighted to accept and cling to that small bit of misapplied power granted them by their Democrat overlords. Nothing to fear from this sort, at least not by the elite of D.C.’s ruling class.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    What irks me most of all is that the lack of critical and objective thinking where the national socialists think they own the moral high ground and thus, it’s ok if they do it, but a very big castration-worthy event if a republican does it. It’s the age-old double standard and I think, possibly, that will be the national socialists undoing….especially with so many people on the liberal side geared towards what is “fair”. If you look at it, they have been harping about “equality” and “fairness” in all things…driven, primarily by the liberal agenda. Would it be any wonder then, if their own kind bites them when it becomes clear they are adhering to a double standard?

  5. BigOil says:

    Our petty dictator President has determined Congress has no authority to tell him how many advisors he can have. Therefore, by his logic it is perfectly Constitutional for the President to line up a couple hundred, or even a couple thousand advisors and form his own shadow government with an unlimited budget. Good thing our founding fathers built so much flexibility into the Constitution.

  6. Rip Cord says:

    Hussein’s Middle Finger! How’s that including Democrats into your negotiations workin’ for ya Speaker Boehner? LOL When will the Republicans ever get it? Do you have to look so wimpy in public. Can’t you even hide it for a minute?

  7. spudmom says:

    Obama is right; he has the right to use as many advisors as he would like. However, he does not have the ability to PAY them from our taxes.

  8. Mithrandir says:

    WHAT WE ALL KNEW is that the junior senator from Illinois, and junior federal senator, HAD NO EXPERIENCE other than campaigning against the abuses of government. –He had no experience or intention of changing any of it.

    Obama admits he is not qualified to be President: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4yCwqtuv5Q

    Biden admits Obama was not qualified to be President: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAaLEJwkh9c

« Front Page | To Top
« | »