“Obama will go down in history as the president

Michael Ellis

Watchdog
Original Sin Donor
Joined
January 6, 2011
Messages
66
who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Hope and Change for the Sheeple.

http://www.infowars.com/president-o...ave-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/

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.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
66
It looks like the President didn't really have much choice in this matter since it is either sign it into law or shut down the military. Because of the people that have control in congress I don't think they would have been able to get the horrible parts removed and if it didn't get passed then there wouldn't have been funding for the military.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,596
Exactly guenthar. Obama wasn't exactly enthusiastic about this bill was he?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
I'm amazed that a guy like Obama doesn't get more credit. It just goes to show how pathetically powerless the figurehead really is.
 
Localö news sounded rather as iof he was more or less pressed into signing it - he simply had no other choice.

Which is good for his political enemies : At the end of the day they can say :
"It wasn't our fault ! He has signed it !"

Like ... Wreaking havoc, then being elected away, and then say that the now elected party was responsible for everything ...
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,979
Location
Old Europe
The bill was introduced by the republican arm and is heavily backed by them. There is no way they can spin this against Obama without looking stupid. Of course they'll try. And look stupid. :)
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
837
Hey, they're politicians, looking stupid is what they ALL do best!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,830
Location
Australia
It looks like the President didn't really have much choice in this matter since it is either sign it into law or shut down the military. Because of the people that have control in congress I don't think they would have been able to get the horrible parts removed and if it didn't get passed then there wouldn't have been funding for the military.

Where can i read more about this? Why does he have to shut down the military if he doesnt sign the bill?
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
The two issues are part of a single bill. It's a common tactic of both parties to tack poison pills on bills that can't realistically be veto'd. Makes a good argument for the line item veto, a traditionally republican proposal.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,551
Location
Illinois, USA
Hey, it's America, land of the free, home of the brave, etc, etc.......!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,830
Location
Australia
Is "retarded" one of the et ceteras Corvin? :)
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
How would I know, I don't live there!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,830
Location
Australia
Isn't that what they've been doing since 9/11?

It's just officially greenlit now I suppose :)
 
For Obama, who has sworn to dissolve Guantanamo (spelling ?), this must be a beating into the stomach.

And what I actually never understood is why Guantanamo is located on Cuba itself ? Isn't that an insult to the peoples of Cuba ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,979
Location
Old Europe
For Obama, who has sworn to dissolve Guantanamo (spelling ?), this must be a beating into the stomach.

And what I actually never understood is why Guantanamo is located on Cuba itself ? Isn't that an insult to the peoples of Cuba ?

Prior to the communist take over of Cuba in the 50's, Cuba was an ally of the US. The previous government leased the area that Guantanamo is located on to the US for I believe 100 years and the US build a military base there. After the revolution Castro & Co. told the US to leave. The US said no and offered to continue to pay Cuba as per the terms of the lease. Cuba refused. Been that way ever since.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
Prior to the communist take over of Cuba in the 50's, Cuba was an ally of the US. The previous government leased the area that Guantanamo is located on to the US for I believe 100 years and the US build a military base there. After the revolution Castro & Co. told the US to leave. The US said no and offered to continue to pay Cuba as per the terms of the lease. Cuba refused. Been that way ever since.
The treaty was signed in 1903 so isnt it time for the US to leave since 100 years has passed?
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
The treaty was signed in 1903 so isnt it time for the US to leave since 100 years has passed?

According to Wikipedia, it is a 'perpetual lease', so I was incorrect on the time period.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
It looks like the President didn't really have much choice in this matter since it is either sign it into law or shut down the military. Because of the people that have control in congress I don't think they would have been able to get the horrible parts removed and if it didn't get passed then there wouldn't have been funding for the military.

Well, according to a friend of mine:

A friend of mine; said:
That's incorrect. It was this or vetoing the bill, which would not have shut down the military, just delayed the specifics on its budget. Even when the budget of the whole government is in limbo and we have a "government shutdown", so called "essential services" like keeping the military going don't shut down. In this case all that would have happened is that he would have vetoed the bill, and Congress would either vote to remove the provisions he objected to, or they would override his veto.

Übereil
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,263
Location
Sweden
I genuinely wonder why Obama haven't vetoed this bill. The smart way to do it would have been to veto it and than dare Congress to override his veto. And, if he was given some convincing reasons to sign it, he should have come out and said so.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Back
Top Bottom