MILLER: Obama blows off Congress - Washington Times

Sorta like all those signing statements that bush the mental/moral midget did? God.....do you really want to go there. The nasties on the right have been blowing off Obama for over 3 YEARS and ya want to bitch and moan about Obama! REALLY. When EVERY TIME bush the m&m midget ignored just about EVERY bill he signed! No wonder those of us who pay attention have to laugh at you!

18 for Obama. IN 3 YEARS. (8 year on and 5 each of the other 2)

Bush beat that out in ONE year. How about 24 year 1, 34 in the second. 27, 24, 14, 23, 8 and 5.

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm

List of Signing Statements
issued by
George W. Bush

| 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |

Want to beat up on Obama make sure y'alls nose is clean. Or we will call you out on your hypocracy!

Or we will call you out on your hypocracy!

Try this on for size: Bush was an @!$%#! We called him that because of the wars, we called him that for reckless spending, we called him that for being out of touch with the american people, we called him that for his failure to stop the lobbyist corrupting Washington, we called him that for suspending our Rights, we callled him that for torturing people, and we called him that for a lot of other things too.

Now Obama is repeating the same things that made everyone call Bush an @!$%#!

Guess what that means....

ck.....never claimed I was a big obama fan.....keep hoping for a better alternitive. Certainly don't see anything coming out of the rabid right worthy of MY vote. Given the choice as it is right now....what would YOU do? NOT voting is NOT an option!

And vic.....hurry up and come up with something. The primaries in my state is only a month or so away!

I plan to vote for Ron Paul. I may not agree with everything he says, but I do support more of his positions on the major issues than any other candidate.

If Ron doesn't get the Republican nod, I will write in his name for president and Barney Franks as V.P. just on principal alone...

paul is a (r)egressive and anti women. THis veteran who is also a WOMAN certainly WON'T!

Pro-Life is not Anti-woman. Yes he is regressive. He wants to bring back the Liberty this country was founded upon. That doesn't sit well with the Nanny-State proponents. I'm kinda caught in the middle since I would love to see a Utopian Socialist Society but I know that is never going to happen with Capitalism as our political base. Because of this, then I prefer the idea of going back to being Free. Maybe if we do start over, we can build towards that Utopia with Citizens as the focus of Government instead of Corporations.

What I do know for sure though is if we DON'T get the crooks and liars out of Congress, we will only see our rights further eroded while Corporations are expanded upon to the point where we have no voice in the matter of government.

ck.......when you try to control a woman's RIGHTS and choice as far as HER reproduction, that is anti-woman! NO ONE has a right to tell any woman what to do with HER uterus. When those geriatric old farts can get pregnant and give birth, then I might reconsider!

First off, even though he is Pro-Life he doesn't want to ban abortions by Federal Law. he wants the decision left up to the States, the same as gay marriage, and drug laws. Now the SCOTUS has already decided a woman can get an abortion on demand so the likelyhood of any State banning abortions is practically nil. This means that even if he could somehow remove the Federal Law, precedent already exists that the SCOTUS will support any suit brought against any State trying to outlaw them.

Secondly, if that is your sole disagreement with his policies and as I have pointed out, he won't change the law to ban abortions but do away only with the Federal Law granting legallizing them at the Federal Level, then what other objections to his policies would keep you from voting for him?

He introduced a bill asking for an Amendment to the Constitution that would declare that life begins at conception; that a fertilized egg is a person. This would make any abortion an violation of the constitution and would result in all abortions being declared illegal. The only way to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court is to amend the constitution, which is what he advocated. As with his views on civil rights, he attempts to maintain the ability to deny that he supports the natural consequence of his positions. But, if he supports an amendment that would outlaw abortion, he supports outlawing abortion and if he opposes laws that make discrimination illegal, he supports discrimination. His newsletters tell us all that we need to know about his view of African Americans.

First: Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Congress amend the Constitution?

Second: He objected to the Civil Rights Act because he felt it stripped Constitutional Rights from us, namely the Freedom to Associate. He feels it could have been done another way without infringing upon our freedoms.

Third: If the newsletters are your sole proof of "what we need to know about his views of African Americans" then Obama ditching the Middle-Class tells us all we need to know about where we stand with him doesn't it.

First. You are wrong. Congress proposes amendments and the states have to ratify it. More to the point, what is your point? He wanted to amend the Constitution so that abortion would be illegal everywhere in the United States.

Second: it stripped away the right to discriminate in public accomodations. It did not apply to personal relationships. And when will he share with us his means of outlawing discrimination? If you oppose civl rights laws, you oppose civil rights.

Third. What was written under his name tells us about him. What someone on a right wing blog claims about Obama abandoning the middle class tells us about the liar who is making that assertion, but tells us nothing about the President.

Yes you are right, the States magically amend the Constitution without any congressional effort at all like proposing it and passing the resolution by a super majority first before submitting it to the States for ratification. /s

I didn't go the whole route because the point was that as President, Ron Paul couldn't amend the Constitution and actually had a better chance of doing it as a Senator where he could propose the Amendments--but good job of ducking the point.

Second , he has stated that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was because of the limiting of Constitutional Rights not because he opposed the intent of it:

Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws. Ron Paul

Third, your double standards are showing. We should believe one political attacker but not another?

Riiight...

Since Speaker Boehner has no intention of restraining the runaway spending of the current Administration, it is moot.

Congress proposes amendments and the states have to ratify it

So, CK, you did not read this? Amendments can happen two ways. Let me explain them to you. First, Congress passes an Amendment by 2/3 vote in both houses. It is then sent to the states where 2/3 of the state legislatures have to ratify it. Or, 3/4 of state legislatures vote to call a constitutional convention. The convention can propose Amendments which also have to be ratified by the states. If you need further explanation of the Constitution, feel free to ask.

I know what candidate Paul has said. I judge him by his actions as a congressman.

I judge him by his actions as a congressman.

What was written under his name tells us about him.

His newsletters tell us all that we need to know about his view of African Americans.

So which is it exactly; the allegations or his actions you are using to judge him by again?

Or, 3/4 of state legislatures vote to call a constitutional convention.

And when exactly was the last time that was done since we adopted the Constitution? Oh yeah, NEVER! I grant you that just because we haven't done it yet it doesn't mean we can't but it certainly does mean it isn't worth mentioning as a likely possibility as a route for Ron Paul to use as President to amend the Constitution.

If you need further explanation of the Constitution, feel free to ask.

You? Nah, I prefer to deal in the realm of reality. Since Ron Paul cannot convene the Constitutional Convention on his own, even mentioning it in the context of this discussion is a moot point. The reality of the situation precludes discussion of it as a viable option as I explained to you already:

I didn't go the whole route because the point was that as President, Ron Paul couldn't amend the Constitution and actually had a better chance of doing it as a Senator where he could propose the Amendments--but good job of ducking the point.

Not to worry though, I really don't expect you to understand. It takes logical thinking which this statement by you clearly shows you to have a problem with:

If you oppose civl rights laws, you oppose civil rights.

Everyone knows that you can oppose a law because of How it seeks to acheive its goal without opposing its intent. He already said that while he did not support the Civil Rights Act because of its Constitutional Rights impact, he would still support getting rid of the Jim Crow Laws. Just because I oppose the Patriot Act because of its blatant violations of Constitutional Rights doesn't mean I endorse or support Foreign Terrorist or the attacking of the Twin Towers. Once again you are trying to twist something being said by someone to try to destroy their credibility. All that does is destroy your own.

I will take his opposition to any civil rights laws and consider that along with his racist writings and conclude that he is a racist. As for his actions, his votes on legislation and his introduction of legislation. He introduced bills seeking a life amendment. He introduced bills seeking the repeal of civil rights laws. He signed a pledge recently in Iowa promising to oppose abortion in all circumstances, including in cases of rape or incest. Those are his actions. You support him, you support a total ban on abortion and you support giving racist back the right to put their beliefs into practice.

I will take his opposition to any civil rights laws and consider that along with his racist writings and conclude that he is a racist.

Then you are in luck! Not only is he NOT in opposition to ANY Civil Rights Laws, he also hasn't been proven to have written anything remotely racist!

You support him, you support a total ban on abortion

So when you support Obama you are supporting the torturing of people and the continuation of warrantless searches as well as doing away with the Writ of Habeus Corpus? I suppose you are technically right. This leads to the question of exactly who is being more of a Humanitarian here doesn't it? Since i am supporting Ron who is seeking to protect the life of an unborn child while you are saying that killing, torture, and imprisonment without trial are all okay with you, well, we'll let others decide who is the monster here.

and you support giving racist back the right to put their beliefs into practice.

Hallelujah and Praise the Lord! You have indeed seen the Light. Everyone has a Right to be a Racist and they have the Right to practice their racism. Happens every day, all day, all over, all the time. Denying it won't make it go away. By confronting it we teach people that even though they have the Right to be a racist, we also have the Right to denounce it and not support those who engage in its practice. What we don't have is the knowledge of those harboring Racist views so we can withold our support of them because they are forbidden to express their views through their business practices. Ergo, we unwittingly support Racism. I myself would prefer to know who the Racist are so I can take my business elsewhere and deny them their profit. But that's okay if you want to keep giving them your money; it's your Right to do so...

You continue to live in your Ron Paul fantasy world and ignore what he has said and done. He introduced legislation to repeal civil rights laws. That is a pretty good sign that he opposes such laws. Racist writings appeared in his newsletter. He claims now that he neither wrote those words nor knew they were being written, but he is lying. He defended what was in his newsletter when confronted with them years ago.

Racists have the right to think and say what they want about other races. They do not have the right to act on those beliefs in providing goods and services in commerce. If they are going to benefit from the orderly society that allows commerce to thrive, then society has the right to bar them from participating in such commerce in a discriminatory manner. You cannot hide behind the guise of "freedom" to justify racist practices. That is the law and will remain the law even if this buffoon manages somehow to win the Whitehouse.

You continue to live in your Ron Paul fantasy world and ignore what he has said and done.

My fantasy and your nightmare. I guess you ambulance chaser friends would have to find something new to do if Personal Responsibility became the norm instead of an aberration. With liberty comes great Personal responsibility and that scares the crap out of some people. They want a Nanny State to wipe their asses from cradle to grave. The world owes them just because they breathe. They don't care who they take from or how much as long as they get theirs. Sounds like the same Republicans they bitch so much about.

They do not have the right to act on those beliefs in providing goods and services in commerce.

Restating the obvious. It's illegal and an infringement on the Freedom of Association.

You cannot hide behind the guise of "freedom" to justify racist practices.

And you cannot call yourself "Free" when you are not free to chose whom you do business with. It is as simple as that.

CK. Your childish and moronic insults demonstrate the typical intellectual funtioning of a Ron Paul supporter. I don't chase ambulances. What do you do that benefits society, other than spew nonsense on this site. You want to be free to be a racist, move somewhere else. We moved beyond the fiction that freedom must include the right to do harm to other people based on their race a generation ago. Pick up a history book and read about it. It made this country better. You and your John Bircher candidate want to take this nation backwards so your own hateful views about those who are different can be exercised without impunity. No, you are not free to refuse to engage in commerce with those whose color you don't like; whose ethnicty you don't like; whose religion you don't like. You are also not free to engage in fraud; to refuse to honor contractual agreements you enter; to have sex with minors as long as they consent; to dump toxic chemicals on your property. The freedom you want is a freedom from responsibility. You want a society where you can harm others by disciminating against them without consequence; to harm others by poisoning the air, water and land without consequence. Libertarians are the party of no responsibility.

I don't chase ambulances.

And nowhere did I say you did; only some of your friends do.

What do you do that benefits society,

Besides voting, paying taxes, community volunteering, raising money for schools, donating time and materials to the childrens school drama club and a $700.00 projector for the school gym, donating canned goods to local food banks, picking up litter whenever I hang out in public parks or go hiking, etc., etc., etc.?

Nothing. How about you?

freedom you want is a freedom from responsibility.

ROFLMFAO!!! Ya obviously really don't know much about me do ya? Since I advocate the reducing of entitlement programs, doesn't that mean i endorse MORE personal responsibility?

"you ambulance chasers" Sorry that you are not a good typist. And, yes, if you are a libertarian, you want to abdicate any responsibility to your fellow citizen. That is the prime directive of libertarians; that they are not responsible for anything but their own aggrandizement. Your alleged contributions to your community do not give you the right to discriminate against Americans who are of other races etc. You want laws that will absolve others from any responsibility cause you "claim" to be personally responsible. Frankly, I don't believe you and even if you are truthful, your goodwill does not make up for others who will not voluntarily do the right thing.

you want to abdicate any responsibility to your fellow citizen.

I'm sorry, could you point me to the laws that require me to do any of the things I do above other than paying taxes? You are sort of correct though, Libertarians reject the legal requirement to perform any public services they don't want to. They prefer to choose when, if, and how they will help their fellow man.

Personally I don't care what you believe. Nor am I in any way attempting to "make up" for what others do not do. That is their Right. Unlike you, I still believe in that...

You do not believe in rights; other than the right to be a bigot; to pollute; to do whatever feels good without ever taking responsibility for your actions. There are no laws that require that you do the things you claim to be doing. Your problem is with the laws that would prevent you from discriminating against people who differ from you in race, ethnicity, religion or gender. You want those laws gone because you, and others who think like you, want that freedom back.

Really? I also believe in my right not to be those things IF I so chose (which I have) anf the right to temporarily be that way (bigoted) when I meet sterotype behavior. If I see someone behaving like an uneducated backwoods racist whiteman, I want to be able to be bigoted.

And No, you don't have the right to pollute. Unfortunately we are alive and therefore we do pollute. EVERY ONE OF US; unless of course you happen to be some lost tribe living without fire! You are on a computer so I take it for granted that you use disposable goods. Where do those go when you are done with them? Until we start jettisoning our garbage into the Sun, we will continue to pollute.

Now since I don't "owe you" any further explanation of what I believe (not that I owed you one to begin with but it seems like fun at the moment) I think maybe you could get a grip on that bigotry getting the better of ya. I guess we aren't that different after all, huh?

Now can we possibly get any further off topic?

The final card played by those who defend bigotry is the one that accuses those who oppose it of being a bigot. I am intolerant of intolerance and I am bigoted against bigots. And we are as different as night and day when it comes to our attitudes toward bigotry. I believe that you have the right to be a bigot. Apparently we agree on that. The difference is that I also believe that you do not have the right to harm others with your bigotry. You think that people should have the "freedom" to do so. That is not freedom, it is license. Society has the right and the obligation to identify conduct that is harmful to others and to make laws to either ban such conduct or to, as with civil rights laws, make those who do harm to others pay for that harm. If I cause you to lose income because I injure you to the point where you cannot work for some time, I can be held liable for that loss. If I cause you to lose income because I refuse to hire you solely because you are of a different race, etc, I can be held liable for those losses as well. So, the difference between you and I is that I think that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. You separate the two and prefer freedom without responsibility.

The final card played by those who defend bigotry is the one that accuses those who oppose it of being a bigot.

I wonder why? Oh yeah:

I am intolerant of intolerance and I am bigoted against bigots.

Because it is true, that's why!

The difference is that I also believe that you do not have the right to harm others with your bigotry. You think that people should have the "freedom" to do so.

No I don't. I would support laws that protect life, liberty, and limb from being damaged due to bigotry, but that is all. Anything else is forcing someone to give up their right to decide who they wish to associate with. Suppose I passed a law tomorrow that said you had to let any whino use your bathroom in your house. Am I not now forcing you to associate with the whinos? Is this not the same thing? Go ahead and try to argue its different when you know in reality the similarities are incredibly close.

If I cause you to lose income because I refuse to hire you solely because you are of a different race, etc, I can be held liable for those losses as well.

Nice assumption there that I somehow "owe" you a job. On the other hand, if I hired you of my own free will, I can fire you for the same reason and still "owe" you nothing. As long as I have already paid for services rendered I don't owe you anything more, period.

If I cause you to lose income because I injure you to the point where you cannot work for some time, I can be held liable for that loss.

If that injury is of a physical nature, then I owe you for the time and wage loss. If you are still mentally and physically able to work, then again, I owe you nothing.

So, the difference between you and I is that I think that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. You separate the two and prefer freedom without responsibility.

No, the difference between you and I is that you feel you are free to demand I wipe your ass for you and I think I am freest when I tell you to do it yourself. Figuratively speaking of course.

Just because I own a business I don't owe you a job. Just because I own a business does not mean that I must take your money. Saying I have to do otherwise is saying that I must do what YOU say and that is NOT freedom. Can you deny this? If you can't then you acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act did indeed infringe upon our Right to Association. In order to freely associate, you must also be free to dis-associate. A freedom to choose between options is the very definition of freedom. No option-no choice--no Freedom!

Suppose I passed a law tomorrow that said you had to let any whino use your bathroom in your house.

CIvil rights laws have nothing to do with your private relationships and your ability to associate with, or refuse to associate with, whomever you want. You obviously do not understand the civil rights laws on the books as they have no application to personal relationships; only commercial ones. You can refuse to let anyone you want use the bathroom in your home. You can refuse to feed anyone you want in your kitchen. You cannot open a restaurant and then refuse to serve people based on their race. If you engage in commerce, you are benefitting from the laws that govern commercial relationships. You cannot benefit from those laws and still exclude millions of Americans from your commercial establishment. Perhaps you need to educate yourself about civil rights laws if you think they apply to your non-commercial associations or relationships, as they do not.

I do not assume that you "owe" anyone a job. But if you are going to hire an employee, again, you are benefitting from the laws that govern that relationship; laws that protect both you and the employee. You cannot exclude people based on their race. That has nothing to do with your right to associate with whomever you want; it has to do with your right to engage in commerce in a discriminatory manner.

Saying I have to do otherwise is saying that I must do what YOU say and that is NOT freedom. Can you deny this?

Of course I can deny this. This nation, long ago, denied this. You are not being told to do as I say; you are being told to do what we as a society say. We say you cannot lie about the effectiveness of a medical product you are selling. That is fraud. But that interferes with your ability to sell your product; it interferes with your freedom to say what you want and sell what you want. We also say you cannot have employees without having workers compensation insurance. This interferes with your freedom to have whatever arrangement you want with your employees, even if they agree to not be covered by comp. Too bad. We, as a society, decided that an ordered system for compensating injured workers was necessary. We, as a society, decided that people should not be allowed to make false claims about the effectiveness of a product.

The bottom line is that you cannot participate in commerce, with all of the protections that the law provides you in doing so, and still exclude from your commerce people based on race. And you do have an option. Do not participate in commerce.

I really do not think you have any concept of what this nation would be like without civil rights laws. Do you think that homeowners associations should be allowed to require that anyone buying in their community agree to not sell to black people? Should racial exclusion clauses in deeds be permitted? Do you think that a private college should be allowed to refuse admission to black people; that a bus company like Greyhound should be permitted to refuse to transport black passengers or, if they do transport them, that they be required to sit in the back of the bus? You act as if all these monstrous things would simply have gone away regardless of the intervention of the Courts and governments. Are you that naive? Name one place where discrimination went away, on its own, without governmental intervention. You cannot because it never happened in a city, a state or a nation. Not without the Courts and then the government itself making it happen. You look around today and think that we do not need civil rights laws because people today are not inclined to discriminate. Guess what? The progress made in changing people's attitudes about race is the result of civil rights laws. And there are still plenty of people who, if not for the threat of legal action, would resort to the same type of hateful bigotry that existed before. Finally, no one is saying you cannot discriminate. You cannot go to jail for refusing to serve a black person or hire one. You will simply have to pay damages for engaging in the civil wrong of doing so.

To you, the ends justify the means and I say that is a slipeery slope to embark on. If we had not eroded our rights to the point we have, there would be no Gitmo torture and sanctioned assassination of American citizens. The fact that you, supposedly an attorney , advocate and endorse the curbing of Rights speaks volumes for what a sorry state this country is in. I admire your goals which mirror mine in many respects, but I abhore your means to your end. They are as Anti_American as the Ptriot Act itself. Shame on you for being willing to strip Rights from another just because you don't agree with their views. It is people such as this who have become some of our histories greatest Oppressors all in the name of Social Good. Do you really think the Nazi's just woke up one morning and decided "Hey let's kill the Jews!"? No. They decided that the Jews world and religious views ran counter to theirs and that the best way to deal with it was to strip them of their Rights.

The inability to see the potential impact of the stripping of our Rights by some people is simply stunning!

I do not support the curbing of rights. It is funny, once you find yourself proven wrong on the topic at hand, you start talking about @!$%# we never discussed. Here is a reminder "Civil Rights Laws" "bigotry" "Ron Paul's opposition to one and support of the other". And the progress that has made this country great to All Americans, of all races, is not un-American or Anti-American. You are the one that hates what this nation has become over the last eighty years, which, coincides with the same period during which we became the strongest, wealthiest, most influential and freest (for all Americans) nation on the face of the earth. It is truly a shame that you cannot have at least some pride in the Nation that gives you more freedom than any other on the face of the earth. It is also a shame that you decry the actions that have extended that freedom to those long denied it. You cannot, even on your best day, identify a single "right" you have lost in the last fifty years. All you can complain about are laws that extended rights to others. You apparently see it as a zero sum game where the extension of rights to those denied them for generations somehow comes at the expense of your rights. It is terrible shame that you do not see how much freer you have become as all Americans became freer and more able to take advantage of the opportunity that is the birthright of all Americans, regardless of race or any other irrelevant characteristic. SInce you hate this country so much, why do you stay? Having trouble finding any other place with the type of responsibility-less freedom you desire? Sure are. Such places do not exist. The world has progressed too far for any such place to still exist.

I do not support the curbing of rights.

Yes you do. You support the Civil Rights Act as written and therefore support curbing of rights.

once you find yourself proven wrong on the topic at hand, you start talking about @!$%# we never discussed.

First off, you haven't proved me wrong. If anything you ciontinually prove me right by admitting that the Civil Rights Act forces people to do something they may not want to do. You've also proven that everyone is a bigot including yourself and the only difference is the subject matter. By sheer definition alone, you are a Pro-Civil Rights Act bigot. It might chap your ass, but the truth is the truth.

You are the one that hates what this nation has become over the last eighty years, which,

Correction; the last two hundred is closer to the truth. The Federal Government started undermining the Bill of Rights almost before the ink was dry with the reults we currently have today where hard evidence is no longer neccessary for indefinite imprisonment--only suspicions.

It is truly a shame that you cannot have at least some pride in the Nation

I have great pride in the American People and utter contempt for its leaders and their partisanship blinded followers.

is terrible shame that you do not see how much freer you have become as all Americans became freer

Usually at this point I look for and find a /s tag. Only an idiot or someone living in denial would think we are freer today living under such wondrous pieces of legislation as The Patriot Act than we were just 15 years ago. The fact that you even attempt to assert that brings your intelligence qoutient into question.

SInce you hate this country so much, why do you stay?

THERE IT IS!!!! The death knell of any intelligent conversation oft times tossed in by those who cannot refute the evidence presented when confronted with the fact that their precious Government is corrupt and chipping away at their Rights. Typical of those who feel that only THEIR opinion is correct and anyone not subscribing to it should just LEAVE.

Sorry buddy, not gonna happen.

Such places do not exist.

Your ignorance is showing...

Like it or not, the United States ranks the lowest of ALL democracies for Civil Liberties in the world!

SEE post 1.1!

Also see post #11.5

President Obama: “Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”

www.theblaze.com/.../obama-again-says-administration-will-have-to-

He is not above our constitution. He is acting consistent with his obligation as the chief executive. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional.

Paddy that is NOT consistent with what you said above. Make up your mind. You said:

If he believes that part of a law passed by Congress is not constitutional, what is he supposed to do? Obey a law that is not constitutional?

And as a lawyer you know DAMNED WELL that this is NOT going to come before the SCOTUS because nobody has STANDING to bring it!

He has an obligation to follow the constitution. His signing statements set forth his position on how he can enforce the law while still following the constitution. If he thinks that detaining American Citizens without trial is not constitutional, he has an obligation to direct his DOJ to not do that. Since we are talking in generalities, I do not know if anyone would have standing to challenge is refusal to enforce certain provisions of certain laws. Sometimes there will be standing; other times there may not be.

Well, I guess some people hasn't heard about the 14th Amendment...

"Preventing default is no less justified than using American military power to protect against an armed invasion without a congressional declaration of war," Bruce Bartlett writes in Fiscal Times.

Like others, Bartlett cites a section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

"This could easily justify the sort of extraordinary presidential action to avoid default that I am suggesting," Bartlett writes.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/obama-and-the-debt-a-14th-amendment-solution/1

Does Pres Obama know what is Unconstitutional?

FYI Ms. Nelson, President Obama taught constitutional law at Chicago law which is considered a conservative law school.

President Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law which is also considered a conservative law school.

I suspect that he knows a hell of a lot more about constitutional law than you, Emily Miller, or the editorial board of the Washington Times combined. Virtually all of his (few by Bush standards) signing statements clarify or determine if a given section of a law is constitutional.

Virtually all anti-Obama comments (rant in some cases) on this thread are based on speculation, mis-information, or out right lies. Typical of the Obama Derangement Syndrome that affects right wingers these days.

Ron: Declaring that all anti-Obama comments are speculation, mis-information or out right lies demonstrates to me you have very few facts to discuss.

I dont care where the President went to school - he does not posses Superior intellect to everyone else. That is not much of a answer to the question posed by the seeder of the article.

Neither of these two points are relevant to the discussion.

Obama has the OBLIGATION to follow the US COnstitution.......however the Congress, mostly the gNOp, seem incapable of remembering that document. It has been superceeded by theiir oaths to grover who says that can't tax the rich but it is OK to raise the taxes on the rest of us!

Ron - I don't give a @!$%# WHAT he "taught". Nobody who gets a job "teaching Constitutional law" first year out of law school knows @!$%# about real Constitutional law. Hell, I could be a "constitutional law professor". Ever take a Constitutional Law class? It's based on cases ALREADY DECIDED. You read a few hundred pages a night and regurgitate it to the rest of the class and the professor. Law School requires TWO Constitutional Law classes - not exactly enough to make ANYONE a "scholar" Saying otherwise is a slap in the face to those lawyers who spent years and years studying it and arguing Constitutional Cases before the SCOTUS and writing tomes about it.

NOTHING he says in a signing statement is binding on whether or not something is "constitutional". He's NOT a member of the Judiciary, nor is he a Supreme Court Justice. His opinion is just that - an OPINION. And graduating Magna Cum Laude isn't exactly all that elite - Harvard graduates 20% of each class Magna Cum Laude. And NO, Harvard isn't a "conservative" school at all, it's a LIBERAL university.

And AS a "constitutional scholar" he should know damned well that a whether or not he attaches a signing statement to a bill, he has NO AUTHORITY to do anything either than a) sign the bill, b) veto the bill or c) do nothing. He cannot pick and choose which parts he will enforce.

The SCOTUS has not directly addressed the issue of signing statments - HOWEVER, they did rule that interpreting a law may apply to an executive agency, but NOT to the President himself. (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council 467 U.S. 837 (1984)) It has also ruled that a signing statement will be given NO WEIGHT in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)

So our brilliant CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR has basically ignored the SCOTUS. Who the F does he think he is?

And where did you go to Law school? What is your experience in constitutional law?

And where am I WRONG? My experience in Constitutional Law - pretty much the same as YOURS - taking law classes taught by (in my case) a JUDGE. I also took classes on Legal Research - just like you and Obama. That's how I thought to look up whether or not the SCOTUS has ruled on signing statements.

Paddy: I did not realize that law school was required for a well informed opinion, I guess that would prohibit Abraham Lincoln from joining the discussion!

There is no explicit constitutional provision authorizing the issuance of presidential signing statements. Article I of the Constitution provides only that the President “shall sign” a bill of which he approves, while in vetoing a measure the President is required to return the measure “with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.”4 However, Presidents have issued such statements since the Monroe Administration, and there is little evident constitutional or legal support for the proposition that the President may be constrained from issuing a statement regarding a provision of law.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf This is from one of those constitutional scholars who write tomes.

More from constitutional scholars:

President Clinton also relied upon the Office of Legal Counsel of the

Department of Justice to produce memoranda not only in support of the issuance of

signing statements generally, but also asserting presidential authority to refuse to

enforce unconstitutional statutes. Regarding the former, then Assistant Attorney

General Walter Dellinger prepared an OLC memorandum asserting that the issuance

of signing statements to “make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative

pronouncements,” was well established, and that these uses “generally serve

legitimate and defensible purposes.”28 In a subsequent memorandum, Assistant

Attorney General Dellinger declared that “there are circumstances in which the

President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as

unconstitutional.”29 In support of this “general proposition” that Mr. Dellinger

“believe[d] to be uncontroversial,” the memorandum pointed to what he argued was

“significant judicial approval,” and “consistent and substantial executive practice.”30

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf

Now, this article goes on to make the argument that a President is bound to take care that the laws of the nation are executed. There is a debate over the extent to which a President can take it upon himself to simply refuse to enforce a law. It is not something that this President or his most recent predecessors made up out of whole cloth. It is also not something for which there is a unanimity of opinion among constitutional scholars.

"Law classes" As in Law School?

And Vic, the next time you get medical treatment from some guy who did not go to medical school, but has "well formed opinions" on medicine, let me know how that works for you. You cannot have a well informed opinion on a topic that you have no information about. I have read your comments. You are not informed, well or otherwise.

Law Classes as in what the @!$%# is the difference if it was on a Law School Campus or some other College Campus? The same BOOKS were used, the same PROFESSORS taught the class and the same TEST was used. And I graduated SUMMA cum laude, not Magna Cum Laude.

So are you, perhaps, going to tell me that because I have no J.D. that my opinion is incorrect? Perhaps the links I provided to cases regarding signing statements are irrelevant without a J.D? Perhaps that people who graduated last in their class from law school are somehow still smarter than the rest of us? LOL!!!

I'd settle for scalia, alito AND thomas being unbiased like theya re SUPPOSED to be. They have been bought and paid for by those who got corporate personages passed!

Your opinion is incorrect because it is not based on an ability to understand the cases you claim to have read. There are plenty of non-lawyers who have educated themselves on history and the law to the point where their opinions on these issues are as valid as the opinion of any law school graduate. You are clearly not one of those. You suggested that the fact that the President graduated with honors from one of the best law schools in the country and taught constitutional law and one of the other premier law schools was somehow irrelevant. It is not. His education and experience is as relevant as your lack of both. You did not provide a link to any cases, you provided a link to a wikipedia entry on case citations. I doubt very much that you read Hamdan v Rumsefield because, if you did, you would understand it better. Have you read any of the other cases that discuss the significance of signing statements? More importantly, have you read the constitution and the provisions that describe the powers possessed by each branch? There is more to understanding the constitution than simply reading blogs where people with no training or education offer opinions on constitutional law.

Paddy: I am assuming that was not a COH violation. I will let it go as your opinion, which tends to be much different that many Americans ( although your amongst like minded people here on Newsvine) .

No, it was not a COH violation. You suggested that any ole person can have an informed opinion on this constitutional law issue and I begged to differ by using an analogy. And I realize that there are many who do not agree with me. They helped to elect a bunch of jackasses to the house in 2010. I do believe, however, that the majority want this President to succeed and think that opposing him simply to oppose him is not good for the country.

The change in the makeup of Congress in 2010 was a direct result of pushing through the Presidents health care plan. Many Democrats payed the price. (they were expendable to the Presidents Ideology). The same thing happened to President Clinton.

If I made a personal attack, do you think it would have been a COH violation?

Your insults mean nothing to me paddy. I probably would feel more insulted if you actually AGREED with me.

You're a lawyer - I gave you a citation - you don't know how to @!$%# to look it up without a link? When are you going to figure out that MOST OF US already KNOW that you don't have to be a law school graduate to actually BE smart, just to try to prove to everyone else that you are smart? LOL

Paddy: I have an interesting article on lawyers. Its entitled the American Trial Lawyers and the DNC.

How did I insult you? You said you gave a link when you did not. I have read Hamdan and it does not stand for what you claim. The words "signing Statement" appear once and only in the dissent from Scalia. You did not read Hamdan. If you did, why not share with us the passage upon which you rely in making the statement you did. And I know that one does not have to go to law school to be smart. I know plenty of dumbass lawyers. You may be a brilliant mind. But on this topic, you are talking out of your ass. You are throwing around terms and cases that you clearly do not understand.

Wow, Vic, you have an article. Good for you. How exactly is that even remotely relevant to anything anyone was discussing. How about you tell us who you think the American Trial Lawyers are? What area of law do they advocate about? Do you know that, Vic?

Reported, paddy. Come on, why are you acting like a sanctimonious know-it all?

Paddy: I thought it my be relevant since I just found out that you were a lawyer. You understand how lawyers are such an important special interest group for the Democratic Party.

PS. I would never give them power of attorney until I knew what the bill was. Lol!!!!

Let me educate you, Vic. The ATLA are Plaintiff's lawyers. They advocate for the Plaintiff's bar. There are other groups of lawyers who represent different clients in different areas of the law. The ATLA is a small minority of lawyers and are a special interest group. There are plenty of other such groups. Ever hear of the Federalist Society? They are conservative lawyers. So, your point was?

Vic: The only sanctimonious know it all is the one who did not think it relevant that the President was a graduate of one of the best law schools and who taught at another. You suggested that none of that mattered in judging his competence to determine what laws are constitutional and what his powers are as President. Then you cited to case that does not stand for what you claim it does; that mentioned presidential signing statements in the dissent. A dissent is not precedent for anything.

Paddy: I think you may have your legal wires crossed a little bit.

I did not cite anything.

Yeah, I was talking to Boudicea. Sorry.

Ron - I don't give a @!$%# WHAT he "taught". Nobody who gets a job "teaching Constitutional law" first year out of law school knows @!$%# about real Constitutional law. Hell, I could be a "constitutional law professor". Ever take a Constitutional Law class? It's based on cases ALREADY DECIDED. You read a few hundred pages a night and regurgitate it to the rest of the class and the professor. Law School requires TWO Constitutional Law classes - not exactly enough to make ANYONE a "scholar" Saying otherwise is a slap in the face to those lawyers who spent years and years studying it and arguing Constitutional Cases before the SCOTUS and writing tomes about it.

It is amazing how far some folks will go to try to make their twisted point. The facts are that President Obama taught at Chicago law for 12 years and was asked several times to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position. That most likely wouldn't have happened if he were doing a poor job or teaching in a way that did not fit the teachings of a conservative law school.

Another fact for you. "Signing statements" go back to the days of Madison and for the most part, except for GWB, were used by presidents for the same reasons as President Obama uses them, to identify and clarify their position(s) on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of a section of the law they are signing. President Obama's knowledge and background probably makes him the strongest president in recent history when it comes to understanding the constitution.

What's the old saying:

Those who can, Do--Those who can't, Teach.

Considering he extended the Patriot Act and signed NDAA, I would say that axiom definitely applies here...