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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: President Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations' [View all]alp227
(33,284 posts)46. Bush used a lot of signing statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Controversy_over_George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_signing_statements
"George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements for example, his signing statement attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.[14]"
(...)
The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:
"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."
--So bush actually used SS to defend torture while Obama used SS against indef detention.
"George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements for example, his signing statement attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.[14]"
(...)
The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:
"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."
--So bush actually used SS to defend torture while Obama used SS against indef detention.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The wiggle room is the signing statement, which doesn't mean diddley, in and of itself. n/t
ixion
Dec 2011
#4
The President is the Commander in Chief of all US military forces. What they do is inherently
24601
Jan 2012
#49
"any subsequent administration could easily use that power to detain Americans without trial"
mrarundale
Dec 2011
#28
What about Cons that are non-Neo in nature? By adding the "Neo" modifier, it makes me believe
24601
Jan 2012
#50
Well since Obama's going to be president forever yeah, I don't see any problem with it.
Downtown Hound
Dec 2011
#31
On other issues, DU has instructed me that signing statements are not good enough
Bluenorthwest
Dec 2011
#3
2 things I will say about this: 1) interesting how this bill was signed the same day Iran Sactions
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#7
Huh? The Iran sanctions are IN the NDAA bill that Obama signed - so what are you talking about?
Tx4obama
Dec 2011
#9
I just find it interesting that those two bills would be signed on the same day.
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#11
hmmm... The way I understood it it was two different things. thank you for enlighting me. I find
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#13
There are TONS of things in the NDAA bill, it is several hundred pages big. n/t
Tx4obama
Dec 2011
#15
Well, I'm glad that he used the full 10 days to have his folks review all the details in the bill,
Tx4obama
Jan 2012
#44
"I'll sign off on this erosion of the Constitution and pledge not to be a despot personally..."
Bucky
Dec 2011
#8
If he loses in 2012 *and* a Republican ends up in the White House, is it still law?
Occulus
Jan 2012
#37