seabeckind
(406 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-10-09 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
Edited on Fri Jul-10-09 01:36 AM by seabeckind
About dam time. What moron suggested Obama do this signing statement? The World Bank and IMF are not our friends. Sounds like something Bernanke or Geithner would suggest -- or Greenspan.
Too bad it took a repug to bring up the amendment but I'm glad he did. Probably for the wrong reason but hel, I'll take what I can get.
|
| -House overwhelmingly rejects signing statement |
Lone_Star_Dem |
Jul-09-09 06:13 PM |
#0 |
 -
They wouldn't do that to Bush. The fucking cowards. n/t |
ThirdWorldJohn |
Jul-09-09 06:15 PM |
#1 |
 -
It wouldn't have come up for a vote ... |
zbdent |
Jul-09-09 06:35 PM |
#5 |
 -
no, this is a good point! |
pasto76 |
Jul-09-09 09:12 PM |
#30 |
| -
you may want to do some reading |
merh |
Jul-09-09 11:51 PM |
#49 |
| -
78% of Bush's signing statements were unconstitutional. There was noting done by the scholars like |
ThirdWorldJohn |
Jul-10-09 12:20 AM |
#52 |
| -
You are not wrong. |
merh |
Jul-10-09 12:49 AM |
#54 |
| -
the precedent for future admins is the critical element |
natrat |
Jul-10-09 06:45 AM |
#65 |
| -
Violations by this administration are not more palatable than violations by future |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:02 PM |
#75 |
| -
Fuckin' cowards indeed and the 'pukes fuckin' hypocrites to the last man or woman! |
indepat |
Jul-10-09 03:07 PM |
#72 |
| -
You are correct that nothing was done re: Bush. However, I am glad something has finally been |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 03:54 PM |
#73 |
| -
Signing statements either to create or amend law or to deny that the President is subject to the law |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 03:59 PM |
#74 |
| -
If you read what I linked you would discover that not all signing |
merh |
Jul-10-09 06:48 PM |
#93 |
| -
If you read what I posted, you would discover that I never claimed all signing |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 07:58 AM |
#101 |
| -
You forget a good share of the Dems are DINO's. |
RC |
Jul-09-09 06:37 PM |
#7 |
| -
Don't be silly |
Politicalboi |
Jul-09-09 07:46 PM |
#19 |
| -
Are you saying that 492 House members are racist and this resolution was racist? |
ProgressIn2008 |
Jul-10-09 07:22 PM |
#95 |
| -
Amen! Now that they've got a sane president and good reason to play along |
Stevepol |
Jul-09-09 08:34 PM |
#25 |
| -
What is the reason to play along with an unconstitutional signing statement? |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:07 PM |
#76 |
| -
bush and obama |
maglatinavi |
Jul-10-09 02:08 AM |
#60 |
| -
Slightly less embarrassing now that Congress finally did something about unconstitutional signing |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:14 PM |
#77 |
| -
Frankly I didn't know they COULD do it. n/t |
Papa Boule |
Jul-10-09 02:34 AM |
#62 |
| -
Don't you wish they had done this during Bush's term? n/t |
ProSense |
Jul-09-09 06:16 PM |
#2 |
| -
Don't forget the two rules |
Seedersandleechers |
Jul-09-09 06:27 PM |
#3 |
| -
Hell yeah |
KakistocracyHater |
Jul-09-09 07:10 PM |
#15 |
| -
But it was ok when Bush did it? |
Oregone |
Jul-09-09 06:29 PM |
#4 |
| -
no, it wasn't okay when Bush did it |
choie |
Jul-09-09 06:38 PM |
#8 |
| -
Yeah, repulsive. Repulsive like a fox!!! |
napoleon_in_rags |
Jul-10-09 12:29 AM |
#53 |
| -
Stem cell research is paying off! |
Beartracks |
Jul-09-09 08:33 PM |
#24 |
| -
Another one equating testicles with courage. |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:22 PM |
#79 |
| -
It's not a link between testicles and courage... |
Beartracks |
Jul-11-09 02:38 PM |
#110 |
| -
Because testicles are the exclusive source of courage? Agree that Congress should have acted |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:15 PM |
#78 |
| -
I was wondering about that signing statement |
HughMoran |
Jul-09-09 06:36 PM |
#6 |
| -
It;s not his first of this kind, just the first time Congress acted officially, instead of |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 08:54 AM |
#107 |
| -
I'm liking Congress better these days. |
Vidar |
Jul-09-09 06:38 PM |
#9 |
| -
It was a Republican ammendment?!? WTF? |
prostomulgus |
Jul-09-09 06:40 PM |
#10 |
| -
R or D, it was a good amendment |
appal_jack |
Jul-09-09 06:49 PM |
#12 |
| -
Another intelligence agency, run by the executive branch? |
boppers |
Jul-09-09 07:14 PM |
#17 |
| -
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, |
JDPriestly |
Jul-09-09 09:04 PM |
#28 |
| -
Exactly. n/t |
ihavenobias |
Jul-09-09 09:28 PM |
#33 |
| -
Cant argue with that. |
Egnever |
Jul-09-09 09:55 PM |
#35 |
| -
Hear! Hear! |
seabeckind |
Jul-10-09 01:11 AM |
#56 |
| -
For those who put Party (or Obama) over the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law, |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:30 PM |
#80 |
| -
Congress told the President "No"? |
Hydra |
Jul-09-09 06:44 PM |
#11 |
| -
This is a good thing. |
dbonds |
Jul-09-09 06:56 PM |
#13 |
| -
Only two dissents. Very impressive. Now if we could just get them to vote against their |
bertman |
Jul-09-09 07:06 PM |
#14 |
| -
Excellent news. Obama was flat out wrong. Glad Congress stepped up, for once. |
Mojambo |
Jul-09-09 07:10 PM |
#16 |
| -
+1 |
Deep13 |
Jul-09-09 08:24 PM |
#23 |
| -
+2 |
emilyg |
Jul-09-09 11:18 PM |
#46 |
| -
+3 |
Dutch |
Jul-10-09 03:03 AM |
#63 |
| -
Dems always step up... |
snake in the grass |
Jul-09-09 09:14 PM |
#31 |
| -
The Democrats did not initiate this. The Republicans did. That's why it finally happened. But, |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:46 PM |
#83 |
| -
K&R |
Vidar |
Jul-09-09 07:36 PM |
#18 |
| -
I can't believe I'm saying this... |
jgraz |
Jul-09-09 07:49 PM |
#20 |
| -
Funny how they get all patriotic, Constitutional and assertive with a (D) in the WH. |
DCKit |
Jul-09-09 07:53 PM |
#21 |
| -
Why is a unconstitutional signing statement by Obama less of an abuse than |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:37 PM |
#81 |
| -
I didn't say it was, Karnak. n/t |
DCKit |
Jul-10-09 10:24 PM |
#99 |
| -
Read your post again. You did not use those exact words, but you sure conveyed it. No |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 08:02 AM |
#102 |
| -
Well at least they did it. nt |
Deep13 |
Jul-09-09 08:23 PM |
#22 |
| -
About time |
rpannier |
Jul-09-09 08:42 PM |
#26 |
| -
Good for them! |
Milo_Bloom |
Jul-09-09 09:00 PM |
#27 |
| -
Who were the two dissenting votes? |
cowcommander |
Jul-09-09 09:10 PM |
#29 |
| -
I'd love to know, too. |
chill_wind |
Jul-10-09 01:06 AM |
#55 |
| -
That's fine, but where were they.. |
mvd |
Jul-09-09 09:18 PM |
#32 |
| -
What basis did Obama's statement have? All signing statements saying the POTUS |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:40 PM |
#82 |
| -
I thought there was at least some validity.. |
mvd |
Jul-10-09 05:37 PM |
#92 |
| -
No. The domain of the Executive does not include the power of the purse. I |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 08:07 AM |
#103 |
| -
To be fair, the purse wasn't part of his rationalization |
mvd |
Jul-11-09 12:02 PM |
#109 |
| -
I'm glad they did it....Just funny how they WOULDN'T do it to Bush |
DWilliamsamh |
Jul-09-09 09:41 PM |
#34 |
| -
Please see Reply # 83. |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:48 PM |
#84 |
| -
Obama should be ashamed for penning a signing statement. |
styersc |
Jul-09-09 09:57 PM |
#36 |
| -
I don't think they are illegal, actually. |
SeattleGirl |
Jul-09-09 10:38 PM |
#40 |
| -
not illegal |
maglatinavi |
Jul-10-09 02:20 AM |
#61 |
| -
Not all signing statements are illegal. Most simply bloviate. No harm, no foul. |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 08:14 AM |
#104 |
| -
I don't know of any signing statements by Clinton that were illegal. If you have a specific |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:52 PM |
#85 |
| -
Good |
Time for change |
Jul-09-09 10:07 PM |
#37 |
| -
Maybe Obama planned it this way. |
DUlover2909 |
Jul-09-09 10:30 PM |
#38 |
| -
Please tell me you don't really believe that. |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 04:57 PM |
#86 |
| -
Eh, anythning is possible. Maybe he told them to vote it down, I dunno. |
DUlover2909 |
Jul-10-09 07:06 PM |
#94 |
| -
Obama looks a lot more like Bush every day. |
MindMatter |
Jul-09-09 10:37 PM |
#39 |
| -
Disagree with you on that one. |
SeattleGirl |
Jul-09-09 10:39 PM |
#41 |
| -
Yes "more like Bush" |
MindMatter |
Jul-09-09 11:00 PM |
#45 |
| -
Signing statements were not a Bush innovation |
Inuca |
Jul-10-09 10:32 AM |
#70 |
| -
Bush was the first President to use unconstitutional signing statements. |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 05:12 PM |
#87 |
| -
Have you been under a ROCK? Look at his record so far! |
Zhade |
Jul-09-09 11:44 PM |
#48 |
| -
I'm not wearing blinders. |
SeattleGirl |
Jul-10-09 12:15 AM |
#51 |
| -
I guess it's true that blinders are useless when your head's under the sand. |
Zhade |
Jul-11-09 08:32 PM |
#111 |
| -
yes - and his record |
choie |
Jul-10-09 06:51 AM |
#66 |
| -
What if he ignores their amendment? |
katandmoon |
Jul-09-09 10:46 PM |
#42 |
| -
the amendment & obama |
maglatinavi |
Jul-10-09 02:05 AM |
#59 |
| -
Baloney. This is the first amendment of its kind, ever. So, how is it possible that Bush |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 05:17 PM |
#88 |
| -
Three cheers for Congress |
Jack Rabbit |
Jul-09-09 10:48 PM |
#43 |
| -
This is one instance in which I'm okay with bipartisanship. |
lumberjack_jeff |
Jul-09-09 10:58 PM |
#44 |
| -
YAAAAAY! Democracy is not dead after all!!!!! Whoopeeeeee! nt |
grahamhgreen |
Jul-09-09 11:19 PM |
#47 |
| -
Impressive . . . .!! |
defendandprotect |
Jul-10-09 12:12 AM |
#50 |
| -
Occasionally the House remembers that thing about co-equal branches |
chill_wind |
Jul-10-09 01:12 AM |
#57 |
| -
Thank God |
Phildog |
Jul-10-09 01:46 AM |
#58 |
| -
Article 2 Section 2, President's Treaty Powers |
bigbrother05 |
Jul-10-09 04:13 AM |
#64 |
| -
Wrong. JD Priestly laid it out correctly in Reply 28. It is Obama who overstepped, not the House. |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 05:20 PM |
#89 |
| -
The President was right to issue the signing statement, and Congress was right to make the amendment |
Scarsdale Vibe |
Jul-10-09 11:37 PM |
#100 |
| -
No, the President was not right to issue the signing statement. First, he has no "power of the |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 08:28 AM |
#105 |
| -
Where were they when BUSH was doing it much worse? |
Ian David |
Jul-10-09 07:21 AM |
#67 |
| -
Why is an unconstitutional signing statement by Obama much better than an |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 05:33 PM |
#91 |
| -
signing statements are wrong. |
tomp |
Jul-10-09 09:01 AM |
#68 |
| -
Not all signing statements are wrong, only the unconstitutional ones. Please see |
No Elephants |
Jul-10-09 05:28 PM |
#90 |
| -
don't split hairs. |
tomp |
Jul-10-09 07:40 PM |
#97 |
| -
I do agree here, despite my above comment |
mvd |
Jul-10-09 08:20 PM |
#98 |
| -
If you read this thread, you will see that a number of posters |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 08:34 AM |
#106 |
| -
is anyone objecting to presidents saying things about the law... |
tomp |
Jul-11-09 10:43 PM |
#112 |
| -
Glad they are looking at the signing statements... |
maryf |
Jul-10-09 10:01 AM |
#69 |
| -
Well done. |
summerbreeze |
Jul-10-09 11:03 AM |
#71 |
| -
Agreed with poster above: heaven help me, I'm thinking the House is the only source of hope n change |
ProgressIn2008 |
Jul-10-09 07:25 PM |
#96 |
| -
Has there ever been a House vote against a Presidential act that is 429-2? Amazing-- |
No Elephants |
Jul-11-09 09:07 AM |
#108 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread