We've certainly noted Barack Obama's sudden affinity for presidential signing statements after taking office on several occasions, having vented his spleen at George W. Bush's habit of challenging Congressional legislation without offering a veto. This is just one example:
Q: When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signage [sic] to get your way?
OBAMA: Yes. [Applause] Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. You know, we've got a government designed by the founders so that there'd be checks and balances. You don't want a President that's too powerful or a Congress that's too powerful or courts that are too powerful. Everybody's got their own role. Congress' job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do is part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, is, he's been saying, "Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says 'I don't agree with this part' or 'I don't agree with that part.' I'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way." Uh, 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's going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten 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.
We already knew that Obama would act as if he'd never made this promise and issue a signing statement when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, which Obama did over the holiday weekend while on vacation in Hawaii. But the signing statement itself is a real piece of work, especially in light of the lecture above from the so-called Constitutional scholar. Obama didn't just object to one passage in the large and complex bill. Obama declared seventeen entire sections to either violate the constitutional separation of powers or interfere with the prerogatives and duties of the executive. Yes, you read that right -- seventeen sections, all of which Obama declared that he will "interpret" to his own perspective, even though signing statements give him no such power.
Er, that's the reason the founders gave you the veto, champ. One section in an otherwise vital bill perhaps might be understandable, but griping that seventeen violate the Constitution and/or separation of powers and then signing the bill is a splendid demonstration of sheer impotence, as well as hypocrisy ... two of Obama's signature characteristics.
Every single promise Obama makes, without exception, has an expiration date.
I can remember when the West Virginia Hillbilly had a lot of fun with the fact that JFK bought the vote in West Virginny at $7 a head.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
01/04/2012 13:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder how much Obama spent per vote in the 2008 and 2010 elections? Some of them he didn't pay a plug nickle for because they were dead or went under the name of Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse.
#1
Any US senator can now sue Obama in federal court, and win, and though since Marbury v. Madison (1810), the president cannot be compelled to personally obey court decisions, and often dont, his appointee would be stripped of any and all powers given to him by Obama.
In effect, he could give no legal order, make no regulation, or do much of anything with the force of government behind him. As well, any of his subordinates would be in the same position. Any order attributed to him would be automatically null and void.
#2
But they'd all get a salary, benefits and pensions.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
01/04/2012 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If that's the case, will any Senator sue? what would be the downside?
Posted by: Aware of History ||
01/04/2012 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I keep saying this: it's time to grab a few people and hang them, so the rest will learn to respect the rights of the people. As long as we let the professional political class get away with this sh$$, they'll do things like this. Begin with Eric Holder and Harry Reid, and work both ways up and down the power chain until the Constitution is restored. Remember ALL the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence, not just part of it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
01/04/2012 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
O's playbook is to game the system. The appointment is bait for the Repubs to oppose him and to play politics, discrediting them as obstructionist.
The issue is constitutional, as Congress is not in recess, to this should be opposed by all congress critters. If O gets away with this, it means congress has not fulfilled its responsibilities under the constitution. They are the same as O.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/04/2012 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If O gets away with this, it means congress has not fulfilled its responsibilities under the constitution
you mean like that 1000 days without a budget from the Senate?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/04/2012 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
That's one of them, Frank. Also sitting on their hands while O makes war on Libya. Congress sat on their well fed duffs while abrogating their responsibilities.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/04/2012 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The first thing a new nation does to declare independence from a tyrant is to create a Constitution via a convention of representatives of its people. The most important thing a tyrant is to do is to ignore or destroy that constitution "for the good of the people".
#10
The technicality is what Obama is betting on. Essentially, Obamas claiming that he gets to decide whether pro forma sessions of the Senate amount to real sessions for purposes of recess appointments; that sure sounds like a violation of separation of powers insofar as each branch typically sets its own rules. Plus, the names of the three NLRB appointees were only sent to the Senate three weeks ago. They havent been filibustered, so theres no obstruction yet. So eager is President Working Class Hero to start off an election year by defying Congress that he picked this fight before he had to. If Obama has the power to decide when the Senate is or is not in session then he can claim weekends are "not in session". This power grab is extremely dangerous.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/04/2012 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The constitution seems to be fairly clear - and neither the house nor senate have "adjourned" per their rules, which they are allowed to set by the Constitution, over which Obama has NO constitutional reach. So Obama is in breach of his oath. They should sue and get an immediate order forbidding the appointees from doing ANYTHING until their status in office is decided.. The arrogance of Obama continues to be astounding. If that man wants to push things to civil war, and people taking up arms specifically against him, he's going about it pretty effectively - he's got some folks I know boiling angry, saying things I have to remind them would get them a secret service visit.
#12
And while they are at it, I would love to see some House member sue the Senate for failing to submit a budget, in contravention with their own regulations and LAW that they themselves passed. over 1000 days since Harry Reid last passed a budget. The entire Democrat party is beginning to resemble a nothing more than a criminal enterprise.
The Obama administrations lawyers have concluded that President Obama has the legal authority to name Richard Cordray head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) through a recess appointment.
According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Democrats and Obama administration lawyers said the president has that right. The newspaper also reported that the appointment could happen as early as Wednesday, while Obama is in Ohio to give a speech on the economy.
On Tuesday, Obama administration officials said the president was leaving open the option of a recess appointment.
Republicans have been stonewalling Cordrays confirmation in the Senate while demanding changes to the CFPB. Republicans claim the way the new agency is designed makes it too powerful and too free of oversight. Republicans want a multimember board to run the bureau instead of a single director.
But Democrats and the White House have not budged on the CFPBs current design.
#3
The purpose of "Advise and consent" is to provide a check on presidential power. You have to appoint a "consensus" nominee who can garner the required Senate votes. Obama looks both impotent and amateurish doing this and it will not stand the first court challenge.
Posted by: Mike Ramsey ||
01/04/2012 19:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The recess appointment of Cordray doesnt solve the Presidents problem. The Dodd-Frank Act is very clear, even a law professor can probably under this section, that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is confirmed by the Senate.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/04/2012 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
Ex Former President Jimmy Carter has some advice for Barack Obama as he gears up for the 2012 election: Don't alienate voters with controversial positions.
The Georgia Democrat told The Associated Press on Tuesday that just about everything he did alienated voters, from breathing sealing a treaty to hand over the Panama Canal to establishing diplomatic ties with China.
Carter said: "If your main goal is to get re-elected, avoid a controversial subject as much as you can in the first term." Spoken like a true socialist revolutionary. If this guy is elected to a second term we will be so screwed we'll never walk straight again.
Carter also faced Democratic opposition from Sen. Ted Kennedy during his 1980 re-election bid, which he said was a big handicap that Obama won't have. Too bad Ted's ded.
The remarks came as Iowa residents cast the first votes of the 2012 presidential race to help determine Obama's Republican opponent.
#2
Isn't it a little late to warn Obama about what not to do during his first term?
Posted by: American Delight ||
01/04/2012 7:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Carter's big problem with alienating voters wasn't Panama or China, it was the weak handling of the Iranian crisis combined with inept handling of the economy. He was an embarrassment and if he had any dignity he'd disappear from public view like most Presidents.
#4
Carter began his presidency with high approval ratings. IMO, his approvals went down not only because of policies but mainly because of his smugness, ego centric view of the country and because the left abandoned him by 79 or so.
Obama has essentially the same problems but the left hasn't abandoned him (except for a few) and the black voters, in the main, don't seem to be able to understand that they are victims of Obama's policies.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
01/04/2012 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
For some reason this made me think that Obama is trying to implant alien spores into voters or something.
#11
Nah, gorb. It's easy to tell the difference. Pelosi has hair.
Posted by: Barbara ||
01/04/2012 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Brer Jimmah say, "More dem cabins be comin' real soon, thanks to anticipated "notional" Ocupi-er tithes 'n bodily fertilizer deposits in public places across this so-so land!
Watch for shanty-building crews coming soon to yer area! It could happen!
Posted by: Slomp Oppressor of the Faeries1490 ||
01/04/2012 23:35 Comments ||
Top||
Higher-ups within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are pressuring rank-and-file officers to rubber-stamp immigrants visa applications, sometimes against the officers will, according to a Homeland Security report and internal documents exclusively obtained by The Daily.
A 40-page report, drafted by the Office of Inspector General in September but not publicly released, details the immense pressure immigration service officers are under to approve visa applications quickly, sometimes while overlooking concerns about fraud, eligibility or security.
One-quarter of the 254 officers surveyed said they have been pressured to approve questionable cases, sometimes against their will.
The report does not call out any particular officials and indicates that the agency has had a problem with valuing quantity over quality since at least the 1980s.
But high-ranking USCIS officials said the pressure has heightened after the Obama administration appointed Alejandro Mayorkas as director in August 2009 during an effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, bringing with him a mantra of get to yes.
Internal communications provided to The Daily indicate that the new leadership seemed to fundamentally clash with career agency employees over when to afford the benefit of the doubt, culminating in a whistle-blower investigation into a senior appointee and, ultimately, the agency-wide inspector general inquiry that produced the report.
We recognize their right to interpret things as liberally as possible, but you still have to follow the law, said one high-ranking official who was unhappy with the current push.
At least five agency veterans seen as being too tough on applicants were either demoted, or given the choice between a demotion or a relocation from Southern California where their families were to San Francisco and Nebraska, according to sources and letters of reassignment provided to The Daily.
Those kind of threats have caused lower-level employees to fall in line, sources said.
People are afraid, said one longtime manager, who requested anonymity for fear of being fired. Integrity only carries people so far because theyve got to pay the rent.
A rank-and-file officer who was not involved in the investigation claimed he was demoted to working on less technical cases because he had a high denial rate. They dont reprimand you, they just move you, he said.
They attempted to basically get me to come into line and approve a bunch of cases. And I just wouldnt compromise myself because the approvals they ordered, they werent in line with the laws, said the officer.
These employees claims are reflected in the inspector general report, which found that 14 percent of respondents had serious concerns that employees who focused on fraud or ineligibility were evaluated unfairly. The report also found that supervisors sometimes take cases away from an unwilling officer and assign them to someone else, against agency rules.
Recommendations for improvements in the report included raising the burden of proof and doing away with the popular informal and special appeals practices, which immigration lawyers said would only lengthen an already onerous process.
Attorney David Leopold, who was recently president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the formal appeals process can take up to two years.
When youre dealing with business visas, those visas cannot wait around a year, or two years, for review. They needed an answer yesterday, said Leopold. I think when theyve [the officers] made a mistake at that level ... sometimes you can just reason with people and ask them to take a look at it again.
Nevertheless, USCIS approved 86 percent of the 3.9 million immigration cases it reviewed between October 2008 and October 2009 a 4 percent drop from the year before, according to the most recent data provided to The Daily.
And immigration attorneys complained that it seems like officers are just looking for reasons to deny a case, and already demand a higher standard of proof than what is required. That standard is now considered a 51 percent likelihood that a fact is true.
Were getting ridiculous denials and requests for evidence on things that should be approved very easily, said immigration attorney Deb Notkin, adding that its particularly tough for specialty industries like fashion, software development and graphic design.
The attorneys applauded Mayorkas more open dialogue with them, and other proponents of immigration reform, who had previously felt shut out of the bureaucracy. Mayorkas, to his credit, is very accessible, so we are able to express our concerns about the adjudication process, said Leopold.
But sometimes, the openness led to a perception that private attorneys were running the agency, according to the inspector generals report, which cited emails in which individual cases were granted special review after private attorneys complained to management.
Mayorkas and Homeland Security press officers said yesterday they could not comment on the allegations.
The Daily has exclusively obtained a Homeland Security Office of Inspector General draft report on fraud detection issues within the agencys immigration arm. The inspector general interviewed 147 managers and staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, and received 256 responses to an online survey. Here are some of the findings in the report.
63 of 254 Immigration Services Officers (24.8%) responded that they have been pressured to approve questionable applications.
Several USCIS employees informed us that officers have been required to approve specific cases against their will.
Another 35 ISOs (13.9%) had serious concerns concerns that employees who focus on fraud or ineligibility were evaluated unfairly.
Cases are sometimes taken away from us and given to officers who the supervisor knows will approve the case Another survey respondent was threatened with a formal reprimand if a case was not approved as the supervisor required.
data confirm that USCIS was more likely to grant O visa status [for aliens who have extraordinary ability in science, arts, business, or athletics] incorrectly than to deny a legitimate position.
He wants to bring in non US Citizens and use the his Presidential authority to give them the right to cancel out YOUR vote with thier vote. In return, he taxes you out of all your property through higher taxes on what you own and your income and hands it over to them.
#4
"We recognize their right to interpret things as liberally as possible, but you still have to follow the law," said one high-ranking official who was unhappy with the current push.
And Obama says: "We don need nuh steenking law! Get in line or get demoted or end up in the hinterlands."
#5
Meanwhile, a certain US govt office lost our son in law's passport and birth certificate. Going on 15 months since the wedding, which came after 16 months of trying to get a fiance visa), $2000 in fees, attorney's fees. Where can my daughter find these "hurry up and approve 'em" people?
Back in June of 2010 a leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at University of Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel Apartheid Week rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine. The counter-protest was dubbed Israel Wants Peace Week.
Now, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg has deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in protected political speech.
The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit, Seeborg stated. Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum.
#1
So I can assault people I disagree with and call it free speech?!? Fucking awesome! Let me get my baseball bat with nails in it and start on some black robed tyrants!
#4
"Anakin: When I got to them we got into aggressive negotiations.
Padme: Aggressive negotiations? What's that?
Anakin: Ah, well, it's negotiations with a lightsaber."
-------------------
Free speech is not an absolute right (e.g. yelling "Fire" in a crowed movie theater).
"your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr
The same can be said of shopping carts. That judge is an idiot.
Posted by: Mike Ramsey ||
01/04/2012 16:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart . . . did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit," Seeborg stated.
So you see, it all depends on the context. Maiming and killing would not have been within the penumbra of protected speech here, because it occurred on a tony university campus.
But perhaps at the corner of, say, 104th and Wentworth, the penumbra expands to include maiming and killing to settle a turf war or a drug deal, which would also presumably not occur in the context of an educational pursuit.
Besides, bumps and bruises when the bitch wuz askin for it are totally different. You can look it up.
#6
As citizens we would be better served to replace this judge with a Lucky Eight Ball. Justice would be served 50% of the time at a lower cost. The justifications for rulings could be provided as coherently with a book of Mad Libs.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
01/04/2012 21:32 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
We've certainly noted Barack Obama's sudden affinity for presidential signing statements after taking office on several occasions, having vented his spleen at George W. Bush's habit of challenging Congressional legislation without offering a veto. This is just one example:
Higher-ups within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are pressuring rank-and-file officers to rubber-stamp immigrants visa applications, sometimes against the officers will, according to a Homeland Security report and internal documents exclusively obtained by The Daily.
