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
 

jtrockville

(4,266 posts)
8. Is this Obama's first signing statement?
Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:40 PM
Dec 2011

I despised signing statements when Bush issued them. But Bush issued way more than any other President.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Breaking News: Obama to s...»Reply #8