Hey UD, Remember Bush's Signing Statements?

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

UD is a NIGGER PROTECTOR he is not interested

Sorry

Try

Again

 

[busybody..]

PS

he is gonna say

NIGGER doesnt sign as many as Bush did


NIGGER UD would be lying on that count

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

He's waiting for Soros to tell him how to reply.

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

He never responded to your thread:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=758027

he wont

Im on "IGGY"

aka

"HIS ASS WS KICKED, HIS HIPPO CREEPSY WAS EXPOSED" so he feigns IGGY

as do so many LOW LIVES on LIT

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The ones you were so worked up about?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=495675

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=441179

Well looky here:

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

By JULIE PACE
Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) -- President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.


Gee, why didn't you wet your trousers about Obama's signing statement and fire up a couple of anguished threads?

I disagree with the use of signing statements, full stop. I've made my position very clear on that subject in one of the threads you linked.. A President's job is to sign a bill into law or veto it. Not to sign it with the caveat that he will selectively enforce a law he or she only partially agrees with.

He never responded to your thread:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=758027

That shit-stain Dizzybooby is on perma-ignore. I can't respond to that which I do not see.

His selective outrage is legendary.

*laugh* My selective outrage? This from Mr. Partisan himself.. Jesus, my first real guffaw of the New Year. Thanks.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

*still laughing*
Since you quoted shit-stain Dizzybooby and his erroneous claims that Obama has issued more signing statements than Bush..

In fact the list of signing statements from President Obama is quite short.

ALL of them in his first term, including the one you're talking about are here, all 19 of them.

That's quite a few less than the 109 (by their count) "W" signed in his first term.

If you don't like that source you can always use this one, which breaks it down by year all the way back to 1929 and Herbert Hoover's single signing statement.

 

[koalabear]

I disagree with the use of signing statements, full stop. I've made my position very clear on that subject in one of the threads you linked.. A President's job is to sign a bill into law or veto it. Not to sign it with the caveat that he will selectively enforce a law he or she only partially agrees with.



That shit-stain Dizzybooby is on perma-ignore. I can't respond to that which I do not see.


*laugh* My selective outrage? This from Mr. Partisan himself.. Jesus, my first real guffaw of the New Year. Thanks.

and you first edit and use of rolleyes.

 

[busybody..]

*still laughing*
I am spinning CLOWN!

http://www.dreamstime.com/clown-plate-spinning-thumb9805052.jpg

 

[busybody..]

UD

Typical OBAMA thug

MINDLESS NIGGER PROTECTOR

 

[busybody..]

Im not as smart as NIGGER UD is

But Im almost sure Bush didnt say

Obama Signs Bill Into Law Then Immediately Says He's Not Bound By It



President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed.

"I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient," Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.

The signing statement says that on the issue of accused terrorist detainees, Obama will interpret and apply provisions that bar the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts."
Obama also objected to Defense provisions in the bill that limit the president's ability to put troops under foreign command and require 30 days advance notice to Congress for any use of the military which would involve more than $100,000 in construction costs.



I could be wrong

Im sure NIGGER UD will make something up

Right, NIGGER?

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

But someone gotta remind, NIGGER UD, that NIGGER HO! actually said he WONT use signing statements

Surprise, NIGGER LIED


Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t





















Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 1, 2012

As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.

Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.

From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.

Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by “executive fiat.” Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow– or expand upon.

Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law. RELATED (Feb. 2010): Obama Breaks Yet Another Key Campaign Promise on Executive Orders, Signing Statements

After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yet, no chin smashing knee jerk thread condemning Obama's signing statement?? No condemnation of Obama's selective enforcement of the Immigration laws???

You dug up two threads from half a dozen years ago where I stated with no reservation that I was against the use of signing statements To avoid enforcing a law a President signed and try to act as if I were speaking about George W. Bush alone.. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Perhaps get someone to explain the longer words to you.

I could understand your glee had I ever once spoken out in defense of President Obama's use of them (although he hasn't been nearly as prolific as Mr. Bush). But that never happened. Nor will it.

Swing and a big fucking miss. Zero for one for the year. Better luck next time.

 

[busybody..]

http://heiressapparent.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/iamaclown1.jpg?w=500&h=500.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But someone gotta remind, NIGGER UD, that NIGGER HO! actually said he WONT use signing statements

Surprise, NIGGER LIED


Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t


Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 1, 2012

As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.

Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.

From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.

Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by “executive fiat.” Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow– or expand upon.

Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law. RELATED (Feb. 2010): Obama Breaks Yet Another Key Campaign Promise on Executive Orders, Signing Statements

After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States

Sorry BB, but Aaron Dykes has his facts wrong, or he is quoting people based on their views of the bill prior to its final passage and submission to the President. As I posted a little over two weeks ago, (http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39426832&postcount=56) the offending passages regarding indefinite detention of Americans within NDAA 2012 were amended as follows:

Below is the text of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (HR 1540) as amended and sent to the President on Thursday, 12/15/11.

Now, after all the hand wringing and howling at the moon, we have the specific exemptions of United States citizens previously present in section 1022 and the new language of 1021(e).

I suppose we can now go back and resume the argument over the powers and "authorities" given the President under the original AUMFs.

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-4050; U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.​

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.​

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1022. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.​

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.​

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.​

​

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:​

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.​

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

To emphasize once again, NADD 2012 does not authorize any detention of American citizens or aliens legally residing in the United States. Section 1022 b(1) exempts the detention of American citizens by the military quite specifically and unequivocally.

Section 1021(e), however, merely declares that "existing law or authorities" remain unaffected by whatever detention authorities over American citizens were authorized by the original AUMF in September of 2001. But it is clear from the amended NDAA 2012 that the AUMF is intended to be interpreted as NOT having the authority to detain American citizens without trial.

By all means, debate his use of signing statements all you want, but he will not go down in history as "the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.” Or, if he does, it will be unfairly so.

 

[eyer]

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically,

I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.

As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost.

I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022

in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

...portions of President Obama's Signing Statement to H.R. 1540, December 31, 2011.

Legislation signed into law by the President of the United States of America applies to all Americans - equally - whether they be President, private citizen, or Supreme Court Chief Justice...

...the President has no Constitutional authority to "interpret" the law to his satisfaction.

The entire reason Obama initially threatened to veto this bill was because he, as President, demanded the flexibility - not the requirement - of detention (as he points out, either civil or military)...

...and gaining that amending of the bill, he naturally feels the need to campaign promise us now "that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

How 'bout definite military detention? Is that outside the purview of the President to decide? And are we just expected to take this bozo at his word?

How realistically can one who acknowledges the President's unconstitutional authority to assassinate American citizens with no due process...

..even begin to imagine he has credibility in assuring anyone the President doesn't have the authority to detain American citizens without due process - either civilly or militarily?

Any President who pronounces he and his administration are the ones to "interpret" and "determine" the law...

...clearly considers himself above the law.

And anyone who even attempts to justify any President doing so...

...is just as big a tyrannical bozo.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Any President who pronounces he and his administration are the ones to "interpret" and "determine" the law...

...clearly considers himself above the law.

And anyone who even attempts to justify any President doing so...

...is just as big a tyrannical bozo.

Gee, what a dumb thing to claim. Of course the President can interpret and determine the meaning of laws. If you disagree with his interpretation, you can take it to the judge.

How on earth can anyone enforce a law unless they interpret and determine what the law says? Or should everybody be arrested and charged with every crime in the book, and let the judges sort them out?

 

[koalabear]

With his “we can’t wait,” Obama is following the direction of his former head of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orzag, who said:

“We need to jettison the Civics 101 fairy tale about pure representative democracy and instead begin to build a new set of rules and institutions … relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”

 

[phrodeau]

With his “we can’t wait,” Obama is following the direction of his former head of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orzag, who said:

“We need to jettison the Civics 101 fairy tale about pure representative democracy and instead begin to build a new set of rules and institutions … relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”

You mean less controlled by lobbyists? Good.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Legislation signed into law by the President of the United States of America applies to all Americans - equally - whether they be President, private citizen, or Supreme Court Chief Justice...

...the President has no Constitutional authority to "interpret" the law to his satisfaction.

Absolutely true. No question about it. Which is why all this hyperventilating about signing statements is so silly. They've been in popular use by every President since Reagan, and they've never carried the force of law. I also don't recall any instances where a President has enforced, or failed to enforce, a law on the specific grounds of something he wrote in a signing statement to the general displeasure of the Congress or the public. It may have happened, but I'm not aware of it.

On the other hand, one can think of dozens of examples where most of us have, at one time or another, "interpreted the law" to our general satisfaction. The city or country attorney in your own hometown, for example, who is faced with a large and growing caseload, is likely to exercise his implied (if not codified) authority to favor the most aggressive prosecution of felonies over misdemeanors. Within either category he may be the sole arbiter of what gets prosecuted to the "fullest extent of the law," to what gets plea bargained, or what charges are thrown out entirely, based on, not merely his sober, legal judgement, but what offers him the best chance of professional success and perhaps best contributes to the image he wishes to portray during his next campaign for re-election. Same is true for those antiquated sex laws that have been on the books for decades which he (and everybody else) completely ignores.

You're not even likely to notice this uneven application of justice unless you have been the victim of a crime to which he has not devoted the full measure of attention you felt the case deserved.

Personal, practical and political considerations force themselves on the legal landscape much of the time, and I've never heard of a plan that would reliably remove them from the due process of law, leaving only the sagacious application of untainted legal principles. It is a noble vision, nonetheless.

How realistically can one who acknowledges the President's unconstitutional authority to assassinate American citizens with no due process...

Since you obviously don't understand the "laws of war" in relation to the Constitution, I'll try to keep this simple. Answer these two questions: How many Americans were "assassinated" during the Civil War and which President acted more "unconstitutionally" in that respect -- Jefferson Davis, or Abraham Lincoln?

 

[eyer]

Since you obviously don't understand the "laws of war" in relation to the Constitution as I see it...

You're welcome...

 

[eyer]

Gee, what a dumb thing to claim. Of course the President can interpret and determine the meaning of laws. If you disagree with his interpretation, you can take it to the judge.

Really?

I realize this is a useless request of you...

...but could you point me to the part of the Constitution that enumerates that power of the Executive branch to "interpret and determine the meaning of laws"?

And since you'll be forever searching for a power that doesn't exist, perhaps you can give me a clue on how a citizen can practically confront another citizen who happens to be President and who effortlessly disregards his specific Constitutional limitations and has the unconstitutional authority, sanctioned by the Judicial branch, to assassinate you with no due process of law...

...ie, how can any citizen Constitutionally lodge a grievance against another citizen and with other citizens who don't honor the Constitution?

See...

...the whole deal only works if all citizens are equal under the same law.

If the President of the United States is granted the "authority" to arbitrarily assassinate another American citizen with no due process - no Constitutionally-mandated check or balance because that's been illegally waived by the Judiciary - then, in essence, we again live in a time of he who has the power, rules.

Friggin' statist bozos wallowing in the whole evil lesson of slavery all over again...