ThoughtsOnTheFirst100Days pt3

in the ongoing attempts to mopup the sh*t left behind by former PresidentialF*ckinMoronG.W.Bush:

the following is excerpted and condensed from the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?8au&emc=au :

Obama Looks to Limit Impact of Tactic Bush Used to Sidestep New Laws

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: March 9, 2009

WASHINGTON — Calling into question the legitimacy of all the signing statements that former President George W. Bush used to challenge new laws, President Obama ordered executive officials on Monday to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute.

Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements led to fierce controversy. He frequently used them to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, and that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a ban on torture and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counterterrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act.

Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. The practice became more frequent with the Reagan administration, but it initially drew little attention.
That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers,” and called on Mr. Bush and future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto.
The Bush administration defended its use of signing statements as lawful and appropriate.

Mr. Obama’s directive was consistent with what he said in the 2008 presidential campaign, when he criticized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse.

In his directive, Mr. Obama said any signing statement issued before his presidency should be viewed with doubt, placing an asterisk beside all of those issued by Mr. Bush...

and now [drum roll please] on to the events surrounding 9/11

2 b continued