Here Comes the Tax Increase

[Cats Cats Cats]

I doubt very highly that Obama signed "The Constitution doesn't matter" in his signing statement.  That is the issue I (and others) had with them.  I am not understanding Guido why you haven't started a thread outraged by the memos about the Bill of Rights being null and void in the United States if the president proclaims a fight against "Terror".

What the hell happened to Republicans 

[guido911]

I am not understanding Guido why you haven't started a thread outraged by the memos about the Bill of Rights being null and void in the United States if the president proclaims a fight against "Terror".

What, like Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus rights during the Civil War or FDR imprisoning Japanese-Americans during WWII. Oh, I'm sorry, you were referring to Bush and his treatment of terrorists. I apologize.

Jeez, whatever happened to reading a history book.

[Cats Cats Cats]

What, like Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus rights during the Civil War or FDR imprisoning Japanese-Americans during WWII. Oh, I'm sorry, you were referring to Bush and his treatment of terrorists. I apologize.

Jeez, whatever happened to reading a history book.

Ummm...  So you are using the "Everybody else is doing it so it is ok" approach?  I am not talking about the treatment of terrorists.  I am talking about the treatment of U.S. Citizens.  The Constitution also protects all US Citizens, even those that break the law.   I am against all of the things listed.  There is a reason why these protections were created in the first place.  To remove it because we have a "enemy" that is an idea that can never be defeated as long as there are people who are living on the planet opens up the infinite possibility of people who think "somebody else did it so I can too" to do these things to religious people, people with guns, people who protest, people who drive foreign cars, and people who post on TulsaNow to be imprisoned because we are at war.

Knowing that you think that people should be put in camps based on Nationality I will leave any reference to where my Grandparents were from off the board.

[guido911]

Knowing that you think that people should be put in camps based on Nationality I will leave any reference to where my Grandparents were from off the board.

Care to explain where you came up with that defamatory comment?

[Hoss]

What does Inhofe have to do with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Just another, "HEY LOOK OVER HERE" diversion. As for reducing earmarks; did he? Did he have the chance to reduce earmarks and refuse? Absolutely. Oh, and one more thing, remember how Obama used to bash Bush over "signing statements"? Gee, what did Obama just do when he signed this bill.

The problem was that Bush used more signing statements in his two terms than all other presidents since Truman.  Combined.

Unlike you'd like to think Gweed, the President said he would use them sparingly.  Bush hardly did so.  It's like signing statements were his 'crack'.

And as far as the diversions, I was going to say something about a pot and a kettle, but just skip it....

[guido911]

Companies are going to Switzerland to avoid oppressive tax policy in this country. I kinda like the name of one guy in this story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22

[Cats Cats Cats]

Sounded to me like you were supporting that position, that the President should use any conflict to infringe on the rights of United States Citizens.  

My comment on "what happened to the Republicans" was trying to make the point you just made.  Instead of saying that instances such as those listed were against the former beliefs of limited Government.  Instead you made an attempt to protect Bush.  I do not believe in putting US Citizens in camps based on nationality EVER.  I fail to see how a limited Government crowd can try to say it is ok.  It does not follow with the core beliefs of what the Republican Party used to stand for.

[guido911]

Sounded to me like you were supporting that position, that the President should use any conflict to infringe on the rights of United States Citizens.  

You couldn't figure out that I was demonstrating that prior "great" leaders of this country did oppressive things at a time of war and that whatever "unconstitutional" things Bush allegedly had done was nowhere near the worst in this country's history? Oh, and please do not lecture me on the rights protected by the constitution. I spent the first three years of my practice representing people of this state who believed their civil rights had been violated by government.

[Cats Cats Cats]

You couldn't figure out that I was demonstrating that prior "great" leaders of this country did oppressive things at a time of war and that whatever "unconstitutional" things Bush allegedly had done was nowhere near the worst in this country's history? Oh, and please do not lecture me on the rights protected by the constitution. I spent the first three years of my practice representing people of this state who believed their civil rights had been violated by government.

They did it worse!  That is not a valid argument to me. I was not alive when those things happened.  This was happening now, I am saying it is wrong.  There is one subtle difference.  Those were wars against Countries, not against an idea.  The war on terror (like the war on drugs) can be used by any administration until the end of time.  Terrorists will always be around because it only takes on person to be a terrorist.  So again, is the government infringing on the rights of its Citizens wrong or not?

[guido911]

So again, is the government infringing on the rights of its Citizens wrong or not?

What are you talking about? What rights? Are you referring to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? Are you talking about "illegal" wiretapping? You have been speaking in generalities throughout this argument (which incidentally has gone way off topic, and for which I will take some responsibility).

[guido911]

Obama's lie on signing statements proven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&eurl=http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/2042/

[Cats Cats Cats]

I would be speaking of all attacks on our civil liberties. We can start with wiretapping.  Legal or illegal depends on which lawyer you are talking to.  The idea that it is only "somebody outside the country" or "only when somebody is talking to a terrorist" is absurd.  Setting up the ability to listen to any phone call and all internet traffic of every U.S. citizen is not what i want setup to be abused in the future. 

Here is what Obama said on the signing statements.

For nearly two centuries, Presidents have issued statements addressing constitutional or other legal questions upon signing bills into law (signing statements). Particularly since omnibus bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the entire bill.

In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion and criticism of the use of signing statements to raise constitutional objections to statutory provisions. There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements. At the same time, such signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections. In appropriately limited circumstances, they represent an exercise of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress.

With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following principles:

   1. The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive branch and the Congress to work together to address these concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled bill that may require a signing statement.
   2. Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.
   3. To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection.
   4. I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional problem only if that construction is a legitimate one.

To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision of a statute.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

                             BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-on-Presidential-Signing-Statements/

[guido911]

What's the point with Barack's "signing statement" statement? During the campaign he PROMISED he would not issue them and hammered Bush for doing so. 50+ days into his presidency and he breaks that promise. He lied. Just like on FISA, just like on public financing, just like on earmarks, just like on lobbyists in his cabinet....he lied.

[Gaspar]

What's the point with Barack's "signing statement" statement? During the campaign he PROMISED he would not issue them and hammered Bush for doing so. 50+ days into his presidency and he breaks that promise. He lied. Just like on FISA, just like on public financing, just like on earmarks, just like on lobbyists in his cabinet....he lied.

Are you implying that he lied and the economy died?

Tisk. Tisk.

[Cats Cats Cats]

What's the point with Barack's "signing statement" statement? During the campaign he PROMISED he would not issue them and hammered Bush for doing so. 50+ days into his presidency and he breaks that promise. He lied. Just like on FISA, just like on public financing, just like on earmarks, just like on lobbyists in his cabinet....he lied.

I am implying that Guido is lying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html

"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."


Now you show me where he said he would never use signing statements.

I have been trying to find the specific signing statement to comment on that (which I can't).  I would like to however discuss the contents of the signing statement to see in what context it was used.   Unfortunately instead of you finding and telling me why Obama used the signing statement and why it was wrong to use....  You claim that he said he would NEVER use signing statements.  Then I feel obligated to respond with the facts which helps nothing except to add 2 more posts to the thread.  This is exactly why Picard hates the threads.