Free Republic

President Obama said Friday that the annual defense policy bill Congress sent him violated the Constitution — but he signed it anyway. Instead of a veto, Mr. Obama issued a statement saying he would modify the law in its execution so he carries it out the way he thinks meets constitutional muster. Mr. Obama promised during the 2008 campaign not to engage in issuing signing statements. He said that kind of behavior was a dark spot on the presidency of George W. Bush. But in the years since, Mr. Obama has become a regular practitioner, issuing more than 20 signing...

As the administration talks about executive orders, even Democrats are saying: Halt! La Rochefoucauld said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. To which we might add that hypocrisy is the perpetual bedfellow of partisan politics. However, at a certain point in politics, hypocrisy can degenerate into self-righteous sophistry, in which the hypocrite declaims multiple, contradictory slogans in the same tired register of moral dudgeon. Though hypocrisies and bouts of calculated amnesia permeate the current political moment, few theoretical contortions have been as twisted as the Obama administration’s assertions about presidential power. Despite all his rhetoric on...

Yesterday, Ted Cruz had his first authored bill get signed into law, but the freshman Senator from Texas probably didn’t too excited by the victory. Despite unanimous support in both chambers of Congress for the new law, President Barack Obama sounded less than enthusiastic about enforcing the bill he signed yesterday that would block the proposed Iranian envoy to the UN from receiving an entry visa to the US: It’s the oddest of legislative couples: President Obama and one of his biggest critics, Ted Cruz.Obama on Friday signed a Cruz-backed bill aimed at blocking Iran’s appointed ambassador to the United...

In 2008, Obama promised he would never use signing statements. On April 15, 2011 Obama used a signing statement to avoid abiding by a provision in the budget bill to de-fund some of his czars.

Emily Miller of The Washington Times reports that Obama plans to violate the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill he signed on Friday. Instead, he issued a signing statement that he and Eric Holder’s Justice Department believe the bill is “subject to well-founded constitutional objections.” (Here’s the text of the statement.) What are they? That Congress has asked to be notified if U.S. troops are placed under foreign command. It does not ban the practice of placing U.S. troops under foreign generals; it simply requires that Congress be notified beforehand. Yet Obama whines the bill he signed “disallows the expenditure of...

President says he won’t abide by spending bill he signedWhen 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...

THE HYPOCRISY CONTINUES: IT’S STILL BUSH’S FAULT TOO In yet another arrogant display sure to make the runaway Wisconsin Democratic legislature proud, Barack Obama is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending bill with which he disagrees. Yup. The guy is consistent, isn’t he? Hell, it seems like it was just yesterday that the administration hit us with this little gem regarding the Defense of Marriage Act: “President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.” It’s just that simple America; if you don’t...

President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same. Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's declaration in June that he doesn't have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn't allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct...

WASHINGTON – Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Barack Obama issued such a directive himself. Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill that includes billions for items known as earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to projects in their districts. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to curb such spending. He also issued a "signing statement" in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised "raise constitutional concerns." Among them are provisions that Obama said...

President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006" Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." The Act provides resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from a potential influenza pandemic. Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a...

Few if any principles are more fundamental to our way of life as Americans than the notion that no one is above the law. It is this very principle - the requirement that all of us without exception must obey the law - that makes social order possible and prevents our country from sliding into anarchy and ruin. It was in recognition of this that our founders wrote a Constitution that imposes on our presidents the solemn duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Yet this same basic principle has been repeatedly and systematically flouted by President...

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration sometimes fails to follow all provisions of laws after President Bush attaches "signing statements" meant to interpret or restrict the legislation, congressional examiners say. Lawmakers who asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study said it was further proof that the Bush White House oversteps constitutional bounds in ignoring the will of Congress. "Too often, the Bush administration does what it wants, no matter the law. It says what it wants, no matter the facts," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., said Monday. Byrd and House Judiciary Committee Chairman...

New House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., used his first oversight hearing Wednesday to say he's starting an investigation into President Bush's possible abuse of presidential signing statements. Democrats and some Republican lawmakers have accused Bush of conducting an imperial presidency by using bill-signing statements to declare that he'll interpret legislative provisions his way and will feel free to ignore some terms. Though some influential Republicans, such as Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., have railed against Bush's signing statements, several House Judiciary Committee Republicans balked Wednesday, describing Conyers' hearing as political fishing expeditions. Some legal experts disagree, saying Bush's assertion...

An American Bar Association task force has concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, president Bush has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action. Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds. "That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers." Sen. Specter jumped into the fry by saying he will "submit legislation to the United...

WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court. "We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor. Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to...

GUEST COLUMNIST The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on "presidential signing statements" shed light on yet another example of President Bush's willingness to stretch executive power beyond its proper limits. Those statements are nothing new, as the White House and its allies were quick to suggest. But this administration's frequent and unorthodox use of the tactic goes to the heart of the system of checks and balances the Founders created to preserve both freedom and security. In a "statement on signing," the president can express his views about legislation that he has just signed into law. Presidents throughout history have issued...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration will have to explain why it thinks it can ignore or overrule laws passed by Congress in a hearing next week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said on Wednesday. Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he hoped to force the Bush administration to reduce its use of "signing statements" -- memos that reserve the right to ignore laws if the president thinks they impinge on his authority. "Our legislation doesn't amount to anything if the president can say, 'My constitutional authority supersedes the statute.' And I think we've got to lay down the gauntlet...