We think you're near Los Angeles

Currently in Los Angeles

Location: Los Angeles Current temperature: 45°F: Current condition: Clear See Extended Forecast

House overwhelmingly rejects (429-2) Obama Signing Statement

Maybe you remember this one, when Obama signed a bill last month, which, if I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, makes it a law, he said he would simply ignore the parts he didn't like. This is something a dictator in a banana republic might say. After all, everybody knows that Legislatures can be a real pain in the arse when it comes to taking over the country.

Well, the House has this crazy notion that President Obama is not above the law.

The gist of the thing is that last month's supplemental war appropriations bill was loaded up with funds for the World Bank and IMF. The GOP opposed that part of it, while supporting the funding for the troops. As a compromise, the Democrats agreed to add in some oversight and accountability provisions for the World Bank and IMF cash. It is that oversight that Obama said he would ignore.

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. . . .

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.

So if Obama wants any of the money, which I am pretty sure the Constitution says he needs to get from Congress, he's going to have to follow the law passed by the people's representatives. Otherwise, he gets squat.

Frank and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Texas) said that one way they could get presidents to stop issuing signing statements casting aside laws would be to refuse to fund their priorities. The amendment passed Thursday seeks to nullify Obama's signing statement by withholding funds from any agreement involving the Treasury Department that doesn't follow the conditions set out in the supplemental bill.

"The signal we send to the Treasury is very clear: Ignore statute at your peril," Kirk said.

I realize that all presidents issue signing statements, and my feeling is that if they don't like a part of the law, they can always veto the thing and send it back. This bill, however, may not have passed at all, but for the oversight on the cash. So to ignore the stuff the Republicans wanted, in return for voting for the bill, simply nullifies their votes. And, unlike our previous presidents, Obama is all about centralizing power in himself and his 33 czars, none of whom is confirmed by the Senate and all of whom are unaccountable to Congress. Nice to see one of the co-equal branches, especially "the people's house," asserting some of its own Constitutional power.

Advertisement

By

DC Republican Examiner

Bill Dupray is a recovering lawyer who skewers politicians and the liberal media because they so richly deserve it.

Comments

  • Marco Lagos 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    USA shouldn't give money to the. WB. This institution uses the mone to finance mostly governments who are enemies of the USA.
    Would be better for USA to direct financed projects in friendly countries, than giving money to WB

  • bcoblentz 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    "he said he would simply ignore the parts he didn't like."

    Hey Bill, where are all your articles for every time Bush did the same thing?

  • Denise 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    Bill treat Obama the same way as Bush?
    No, because Bill has Obama Envy! He's totally obsessed. Everything that happens has something to do with Obama.

  • Que 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    bcoblentz says: "Hey Bill, where are all your articles for every time Bush did the same thing?"

    From your statement bcoblentz, you must have not approved of Bush's signing statements.
    Why is it that you approve of the same thing now?

  • David 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    "unlike our previous presidents, Obama is all about centralizing power in himself and his 33 czars"

    You must be kidding. Bush infamously exploited centralized power. By Bush I mean Cheney. I disapprove when it is done by Obama or Bush. I also disapprove of editorialists with a national audience but a "short memory" wink wink.

  • Clint 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    Bush used the most signing statements in history. Amnesia. Amnesia.

  • juslen 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    News flash guys, new president, economy still in peril, and you are still fighting over George W. Bush? This economy have proven that he did it wrong, now you want to repeat the same mistakes because "hey he did it!" Check your heads.

Add a new comment

Join the conversation! Log in here or create a new account if you've never registered before.

Got something to say?

Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!

Don't miss...