OBAMA PLANS TO IGNORE PARTS OF SPENDING BILL

OBAMA PLANS TO IGNORE PARTS OF SPENDING BILL
The Constitution Club ^ | 04-19-11 | The Rat

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:03:29 AM by TheConservativeCitizen

THE HYPOCRISY CONTINUES: IT’S STILL BUSH’S FAULT TOO
In yet another arrogant display sure to make the runaway Wisconsin Democratic legislature proud, Barack Obama is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending bill with which he disagrees. Yup.
The guy is consistent, isn’t he? Hell, it seems like it was just yesterday that the administration hit us with this little gem regarding the Defense of Marriage Act:
“President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.”


It’s just that simple America; if you don’t agree with a law — ignore it.
So what’s the beef this time?

Obama plans to ignore language in the 2011 spending bill that would ban several top White House advisory posts by signing a statement in which he says has no obligation to comply:
“Legislative efforts that significantly impede the president’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities…violate the separation of powers by undermining the president’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these presidential prerogatives.”

Let me see if I’ve got this right: The President of the United States has a constitutional responsibility to make sure that laws are enforced — unless of course, Barack Obama disagrees with them? Didn’t we learn in grade school that Congress makes laws, the Executive branch enforces laws, and the Judicial branch interprets laws? I must have missed something, although I think I got that question right on the test.
Whether or not Obama has the constitutional authority to ignore provisions in the bill is beside the point. The real rub is his arrogant hypocrisy and willingness to say anything to get elected, only to reverse course when it suits his needs. Dude has done more flip-flops than a cook working a double shift at the Original House of Pancakes. John Kerry is even jealous.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama was asked this question verbatim:
“WHEN CONGRESS OFFERS YOU A BILL, DO YOU PROMISE NOT TO USE PRESIDENTIAL SIGNAGE TO GET YOUR WAY?”
His response?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&feature=player_embedded
Oops.

Jay Carney, White House press secretary, tried to clear things up a bit, saying the president was never really against signing statements; just when George Bush “abused” them.

“His concern was with what he saw as an abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration. So the position he took in signing statements on the budget bill is entirely consistent with that position.”
Sure it is Jay.

Kerry was for the legislation before he was against it. Obama was against presidential signage before he was for it. Democrats are sure hard to keep up with, huh?