» News
King Obama
By Emily Miller – The Washington Times
When the president of the United States signs a bill into law, it’s expected that he will abide by it. That’s not the case with President Obama, who has a sudden interest in novel legalistic interpretations getting him off the hook from laws he doesn’t like.
On Friday, the president signed the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill, which funds the government for the remaining nine months of the fiscal year. Afterward, he released a statement saying he won’t abide by the law because the Justice Department had advised that certain provisions are “subject to well-founded constitutional objections.”
House Speaker John A. Boehner’s spokesman Kevin Smith told The Washington Times, “This president used to condemn the type of signing statements he is now embracing to ignore the will of Congress and the American people.”
One of the presidential pet peeves is that Capitol Hill put the kibosh on his czars. Those high-level White House appointments aren’t confirmed by the Senate but are central to implementing Mr. Obama’s liberal agenda. Lawmakers specifically blocked funding for salaries and offices for four of his nine czars: health care (who coordinates Obamacare), automobile industry (“car czar”), urban affairs and climate change.
The president protested that defunding those positions “could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials.” Thus, he’s going to interpret the law as he sees fit.
[snip]
Read the article here.
_______
Is this an impeachable offense? Does it constitute a criminal act?
.
Wraith
December 28th, 2011
Is this an impeachable offense? Does it constitute a criminal act?
Yes, and yes. And, once again, no one cares.
Jack Daniels
December 28th, 2011
How many impeachable things and crimal acts has he committed? and here he is, still in the White House.
He should have been remove in his first year. I agree with Wraith, nobody gives a damn enough to do anything.
SSDD
December 28th, 2011
So, he won’t abide by the law, huh…well Barry, we’ll see about that. I know you have appointed yourself emporer instead of President, but it’s only in your mind. You signed the bill, now you have to abide by it. I agree, Wraith, it’s time to put forth articles of impeachment.
Left Coast Dan
December 28th, 2011
If Obama wins in November – and I sure hope he doesn’t – he will be impeached for sure by a Republican Congress. And I think will be the first ever convicted. Third time’s a charm!
Stirrin the B.S.
December 28th, 2011
“…The president protested that defunding those positions “could prevent me from fulfilling my…
…preordained destiny of becoming supreme ruler of the United Socialist States of America…”
Zonga
December 28th, 2011
Obama campaigned on “No Signing statements”.
*yawn* says the party base. They want a dictator.
beachmom
December 28th, 2011
Dear Leader has left N Korea and come to the US
Uncle Al
December 28th, 2011
Ain’t nothin’ new here, folks. Yes, it is unconstitutional: the prez can (a) sign the passed bill, (b) not sign, usually allowing it to become law by default, or (c) veto the bill and send it back to the congressvermin with an explanation why. Anything else isn’t strictly constitutional.
But all recent past presidents have used signing statements to make PR, political, and at times constitutionality points.
According to the Congressional Research Service:
Don’t take this as any kind of support for 0 – he’s a wannabe commie dictator for sure. But this particular technique has quite a history.
Steve
December 28th, 2011
no one cares demo creep wise they own the Sennett right now we the people have to change that more over who next prez will be
TooMuchTime
December 28th, 2011
No, it’s policy. Obrainless was elected because of his policy positions. They cannot be used as impeachable offenses.
Does that mean that if a presidential hopeful says he’s going to implement a socialist dictatorship by using liberal fascism, and then gets elected, that he is free and clear to do as he chooses? No. He can’t just “re-educate” millions; that’s genocide and at that point, I think impeachment would be the least of his worries.
Uncle Al
December 28th, 2011
@TooMuchTime – You’re absolutely right that policy positions are not impeachable offenses. Perhaps that kind of signing statement where 0 says he won’t obey some part of the bill might be theoretically impeachable, but there’s an even more fundamental aspect: NOTHING is an impeachable offense any more after the dog and pony and trained seal and flea circus of the Clinton Impeachment Theater of the Absurd. You could count the number of congressvermin willing to impeach on the fingers of one mutilated hand.
obama
December 28th, 2011
Somebody photo shopped that damn picture
nutjobs
December 28th, 2011
Translated:……my corrupt AG has advised me that the only thing constitutional is what I see fit……sayeth the emporor
They should’ve stopped funding for the AG racists kill whitey mob czar likewise.
DavidD
December 28th, 2011
Obama blows off Congress
There. Fixed it for ya.
DavidD
December 28th, 2011
Dang it. I’d used the strikethrough tag on the last two words but it didn’t show up.
Uncle Al
December 28th, 2011
@DavidD – The tag is strike.
Strike this <strike>word</strike>.
Strike this
word.(I hope I remembered how to display angle brackets as comments)
Bob M.
December 28th, 2011
You want Tsars? MOVE… to Russia. Via the Waaaaaaayback machine. Enjoy. >:-(
Robert Fine
December 29th, 2011
You know, if we didn’t have a clueless, ball-less Speaker (John Bohener), Obama would be put in the cage he belongs in.