Comments

  1. This same crowd never said a word while BV$H gutted the Constitution and drove the economy off a cliff. Whatever he wanted they gave him and I include the DINOCRATS in this, Nancy went right along with whatever George wanted, as well. I guess she was under some illusion the favor would be returned if the D’s did so. No such luck.

  2. This article left out Obama’s very recent announcement that he was going to change the overtime laws to include more management positions and raise the income threshold requirements for exclusion.

  3. The only thing here that is clear and consistent is that no matter what the issue ‘seems’ to be about…. every move either side makes is simply politics and has everything to do with an election for more power and nothing to do with governing of the people………that is unless it’s something they can take away.

  4. I would imagine this effort is doomed before it even starts thanks to Obama’s predecessor. Executive signing statements have been around for ages, but when George W. Bush added them to laws, his legal team bent over backward for years to determine all the legal reasons that they, and the president’s refusal to enforce laws or portions of laws he disagreed with, were OK. Even the American Bar Association’s blue ribbon panel on signing statements back in 2006 didn’t go any farther than to say that Congress should pass a law requiring the president to be transparent about why he was making the statement.

    And as I’ve mentioned here before, when Bush did end-runs around Congress, many Republicans praised him and said he was being a “unitary executive”.