« 'Remember when protest was patriotic?' | Note to CNN's Blitzer: Coalition Deaths in Afghanistan Near 1,300 »
August 9, 2009
Down the memory hole with Obama
It's getting to be a broken record; if a Republican tried to pull this crap, the press would eat them alive.
Well, in the case of signing statements, George Bush did indeed feel the wrath of the press and pundits.
But when Obama does the exact same thing, he hears a little grumbling from Congress but does not feel the lash of media outrage, as this Charlie Savage piece in the New York Times shows. In fact, the piece quotes a Clinton era official to legitimize the practice:
In March, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent Mr. Obama a letter criticizing a signing statement that challenged a statute protecting government whistle-blowers who tell lawmakers privileged or "otherwise confidential" information. He accused Mr. Obama of chilling potential whistle-blowers, undermining the intent of Congress in a way that violated his campaign promises. The White House said it intended only to reaffirm similar reservations made by previous presidents.
Other laws Mr. Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and a restriction on putting troops under United Nations command.
After Mr. Bush transformed signing statements from an obscure tool into a commonplace term, Mr. Obama's willingness to use them has disappointed some who had hoped he would roll back the practice, not entrench it.
[...]
But other legal experts argued that signing statements were lawful and appropriate because it was impractical to veto important bills over small problems. Among them, Walter Dellinger, who helped develop the legal framework for signing statements as a Clinton administration official, said Mr. Obama was using the mechanism appropriately, and the problem with Mr. Bush's statements was that he cited dubious legal theories.
Ah! So that's the difference. "Dubious legal theories" used by Bush = Bad. Undemocratic caveats by Obama that seek to make it difficult to shed light on his wrongdoing = Good.
Glad we got that straightened out.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- That Strange, Persistent, Cheering at a CEO's Murder is Proof We Are Now an Idiocracy
- North Korea is China's Proxy
- Scientific Societies Err on 'Climate Change'
- A 2025 Year of Jubilee Could End Slavery in America
- The Laken Riley Act Must Become Law
- Depopulation: A Space Odyssey
- Trump’s Incredibly High Stakes
- It’s Not Too Late to Boot Biden
- The Sinking of the USS Agility
- Culture and the Perils of Ideology
Blog Posts
- Firestorm of incompetence in Los Angeles: Water company admits their big reservoir to fight fires was bone dry
- California wildfires: Now for the arsonists and looters ... UPDATED
- Why was John Lennon’s atheist anthem ‘Imagine’ sung at Jimmy Carter’s funeral — at the late president’s request?
- Disappointment from the Supreme Court
- Scenes from a funeral
- Americans, be careful for whom you vote; your lives may depend on it
- Fact checkers upset fact checkers checked
- The farce of multiculturalism
- Fani Willis and the high cost of transparency theater
- More abortion means killing parental rights
- Socialism update: No lights in Cuba, no water in L.A.
- Let's update world maps to reflect American greatness
- Four years of Biden proves too close a shave
- Gavin Newsom actually does something right for once
- The reality of Stand Your Ground