Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts) Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:20 PM Dec 2011

Breaking News: Obama to sign NDAA bill BUT also will issue a signing statement [View all]

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:27 AM - Edit history (1)

on the part he disagrees with.

It was just now breaking news on The Rachel Maddow Show.

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking News: Obama to sign NDAA bill BUT also will issue a signing statement [View all] Tx4obama Dec 2011 OP

Just heart that! gateley Dec 2011 #1

He's unhappy with the part that cancels Eureka and Warehouse 13. n/t Ian David Dec 2011 #2

I hate to admit it but I love Warehouse 13. Obama signing this NDAA not so much.. think Dec 2011 #5

They cancelled Warehouse 13? n/t one_voice Dec 2011 #6

Oh my God, .They cancelled Warehouse 13? Autumn Dec 2011 #22

It's a tv show.. one_voice Dec 2011 #25

Hysterical. nt gateley Dec 2011 #7

words speak louder than actions? aletier_v Dec 2011 #3

Which part does he disagree with? Anyone know? Autumn Dec 2011 #4

Is this Obama's first signing statement? jtrockville Dec 2011 #8

I'm not positive but I think Rachel said Obama's had less than 10. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #10

Yeah, and Bush had HUNDREDS. nt gateley Dec 2011 #31

Signing statements basically hold no weight. joshcryer Dec 2011 #36

This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Dec 2011 #9

You should realize that that was a RW theme karynnj Dec 2011 #17

This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Dec 2011 #38

No - that is not what happened karynnj Dec 2011 #46

Are future presidents free to disregard that signing statement? cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #11

Of course they are. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #14

well, it might matter in court, but not as much as congress' intent bigtree Dec 2011 #12

The parts he's unhappy with...BOO HOO NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #13

I agree Demeter Dec 2011 #18

My guess: Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #15

Executive authority, meaning frazzled Dec 2011 #16

problem they have bigtree Dec 2011 #23

Personally, I think ... frazzled Dec 2011 #26

I think you're making great sense and helped me understand it better. You should do this gateley Dec 2011 #32

It is in the hands of someone who used his authority to order the killing of two sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #37

and the issue cuts both ways Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #44

That seems like a cop-out to me dreamnightwind Dec 2011 #19

No it does NOT do that. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #24

here are a few specifics DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #28

Like I said in my previous comment Tx4obama Dec 2011 #29

He owns it TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #20

This is GREAT news and Obama deserves props for this!!! Logical Dec 2011 #21

"I won't use this now codified presidential power, MadHound Dec 2011 #27

Why is it that folks want to use the bill to change 'current law'? Tx4obama Dec 2011 #30

Codified. It's the same term you ignored from me above. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #33

Relevant sections are 1031 and 1032 MFrohike Dec 2011 #34

The numbers of those two sections are 'now' 1021 and 1022 Tx4obama Dec 2011 #35

I see MFrohike Dec 2011 #39

That's okay - for a couple days I was telling folks the wrong numbers too Tx4obama Dec 2011 #40

It codifies the Bush powers of being able to indefinitely detain "enemy combatants" MadHound Dec 2011 #45

Maddow: Breaking news segment video regarding NDAA bill & Obama's Signing Statement - VIDEO LINK Tx4obama Dec 2011 #41

if the bill is so super extra double good, as clearly explained here on DU piratefish08 Dec 2011 #42

It has nothing to do with being clear or not. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #43