An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Quick Note To TMV Readers

Chicken Little Biden »

Congress Suddenly Decides They Don’t Like W.H. Signing Statements

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Jul 10th, 2009 | Comments

Anyone remember a certain Democratic Presidential candidate last fall who complained bitterly (and correctly, in my opinion) about the many “signing statments” which George W. Bush used to skirt around legislation he didn’t care for? Yeah, me too. But it seems that, having moved his own bags into the West Wing, Barack Obama thought he’d give old W. some credit and take a shot at it himself on a new bill regarding the World Bank and I.M.F.

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.

They would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,” Obama said in the signing statement.

That didn’t fly, however, as Congress took a unique position in its 2009 activities and finally agreed on something.

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities.

This column is not meant as a comment on the bill itself. I shall leave that up to the readers to debate on their own. The point is, these signing statements were treading on dangerous ground when Bush used them, if not outright flouting the law. Obama made a stand on the campaign trail about this, and I cheered him for it at the time. I don’t know what’s happened to his memory lately, but he needs to go over his notes. Also, Congress hasn’t been able to agree on much this year, and they’ve managed very little for me to commend them, but if they can’t accomplish anything else, this is as good of a start on bipartisanship as I can think of.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

GeorgeSorwell

Obama made a stand on the campaign trail about this, and I cheered him for it at the time. I don’t know what’s happened to his memory lately, but he needs to go over his notes. Also, Congress hasn’t been able to agree on much this year, and they’ve managed very little for me to commend them, but if they can’t accomplish anything else, this is as good of a start on bipartisanship as I can think of.

Hear, hear!!

DLS

Obama is a lib Dem and his administration has us wary, but he is more effective than the Congressional Dems, and helps muzzle the worst of them (admonishing them about Bush-Cheney retro-revenge, though that warning hasn't been fully effective). As I wrote several weeks ago, the nonsense about Bush and the "imperial Presidency" (which all libs and Dems whine about only when a Republican is in the White House) seems to be conveniently forgotten now that an effective Democratic President is in the White House and willing to take leadership over Congress even where Congress really should be acting. And as I wrote before, it really makes you libs feel good now that an effective (and yes, articulate) President is getting things (you want done) done, isn't it?

(Hear, hear!)

DLS

Actually, because he is effective, this might be the time to do it: Obama is the President that should be given power that may only require Congressional legislation, not an amendment to the Constitution, that would provide a good measure of line-item veto effectiveness, where it most counts, where it so often is useful.

Obama should be given the power to veto amendments (say, in full) to any bill (separately from the body of the bills themselves).

It's the most timely and relevent kind of line-item power, addressing where so much trouble is, in a very convenient and effective way, in amendments. (Leaving the body alone may bypass the need to amend the Constitution.)

DLS

"Congress hasn’t been able to agree on much this year"

If anything, the Democratic steamroller is more like a runaway train downhill. Only question is to what extent and how that this is being actually managed or directed (the explanations would not be flattering).

shannonlee

I know a lot of liberals have buried their heads in the sand on this, but Obama is doing A LOT of things that Bush did during his reign of terror. At times, it is hard to tell the two adminstrations apart.

This is also not the first time Obama has gone back on a campaign promise. Personally, I am not shocked.

For some reason, many people thought he wasn't a politician.

tidbits

The Constitution at Article I, section 7 is probably fuzzy enough to justify (at least to an imaginative WH counsel) signing statements. Perhaps Congress should try passing a law to eliminate signing statements and see if Obama would sign that...without a signing statement.

Jazz

It would be funnier for the punditry class if he signed it WITH a signing statement.

GreenDreams

Maybe Congress is finally ready to restore some of the checks and balances, some of the balance of power that they gave up under Bush. Clearly, GOP legislators would never, and did never, challenge Bush on signing statements. Now Congress has a chance to reclaim that balance of power with the GOP voting against Obama on anything and everything. The trick is for legislators to shut down signing statements now in a way they can't be resumed under future administrations.

Jazz

Agree with GD. The one way for either party to really claim my respect is to bitch about something bad when the other party is in power and actually do something about it when they are in power. Well done, Congress.

shannonlee

"The trick is for legislators to shut down signing statements now in a way they can't be resumed under future administrations."

Until this is done, Dems are no different than Reps on the issue. Congress cherry picked an issue to appear that they are not laps dogs to Obama. Until real legislative change is made...which they have the power to do...they are still lap dogs.

blog comments powered by Disqus