Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I agree that Obama was not very clear in his response to the question.
|
Since when is an emphatic "NO" [pause for applause], "not very clear?" His clarity cannot be in question, unless you wish to fall back on the Clinton Defense ("It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."). No, Mr. Obama used a supporter's question to launch into an exposition on why signing statements are unconstitutional. His audience knew exactly what he was saying and they applauded him for it.
Mr. Obama (who, by the way, taught constitutional law for 10 years) explains why a president cannot use signing statements, and I quote:
“What George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he’s been saying ‘well I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part. I’m gonna’ choose to interpret it this way or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”
Senator Obama did not explain that the practice was first used my James Monroe in the early 19th century or that President Clinton had, in fact, used signing statements more times than George W. Bush-- No, Constitutional Expert Obama said that the use of signing statements was evidence of Bush "making up laws." Mr. Obama then sited his experience as teacher of the Constitution to provide authority to his pronouncement that the use of signing statements is "not part of the president's power."
Funny how power changes all those wonderful lessons Mr. Obama taught on constitutional law …