Obama is essentially saying he won’t be bound by the bill that prevents him from doing anti-gun studies on the taxpayer dime. This is the same guy who our opponents and the media touts as not, in fact, leading a stealth gun control campaign. You’re apparently paranoid for even thinking so, from what I’ve read from these charlatans.
Obama’s claim is essentially this:
“I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,” Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.
No. This is not how it works. Congress controls the purse strings. This is how the system works. Dave Hardy, who thankfully reads the same Constitution the rest of us do, notes:
I can’t find that clause in my own copy. I just find “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Maybe I’ve got an outdated version. But I’m sure my copy of theÂ anti deficiency actÂ is up to date. So is the provision making violationÂ a felony.
The President isn’t just skating on thin Constitutional ice here, he’s staking on water, and he’s going to sink of he follows his words with deeds.
11 thoughts on “Not Reading the Same Constitution”
Yeah Bush largely got away with signing statements because he based them on separation of power or special executive privileges (wartime powers) granted by the congressional authorization of force in Iraq. Obama can’t do (1) because it’s explicitly constitutional for congress to control appropriations and (2) we aren’t in Iraq anymore.
Remember he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago between 1992 and 2004.
The Constitution is like the Pirate’s Code to him; more like guidelines, really. Petty rules shouldn’t get in the way of doing Good. Which is a horrific attitude, btw.
Does anyone else hear the voice from the guy in South Park “I am Above The Law!!!!”
You folks are taking his statements too far.
Note the copious use of “I” and “me”. He isn’t saying federal agencies but his office of the president.
Section 218 says:
By saying ANY money instead of stating any money given to xyz agencies, etc; they made the law overly broad.
Congress can limit the activities of federal agencies, but congress does not have the power to muzzle the political office of the executive. i.e.; The President.
Imagine if they did for a moment how that would work out.
Can they stop him from spending federal tax money on this, though. His personal and even ex officio ability to speak in the topic are not blocked, but should Congress allow the Office of the President to make and distribute a 30-second PSA on the evils of private sale, using federal tax funds?
The president doesn’t normally have the power to use tax payer dollars to make and distribute a 30-sec PSA. He has the power to make one with private funds though.
So no, tax dollars could not be used for this purpose on a normal basis. There is are anti propaganda laws on the books that severely limit the ability of the government to engage in this type of activity.
PS: You will note that the president didn’t feel the need to include such language for the second NRA backed proviso on funding relating to Division H: Â§503
Here is why:
Ok, that makes rather more sense.
And what if he goes ahead any way? Does anyone think there aren’t 34 Copperheads / RINOs who wouldn’t confirm impeachment no matter what he did?
Comments are closed.