Obama, The Imperial President (Guest Post)

By 9 Comments 949 views

guidance1

It’s quite rare that legislation is so popular that it passes unanimously, and even rarer when it happens in BOTH the Senate and House of Representatives. Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama signed such legislation on Friday, April 18, 2014. But, even though the legislation is popular, Obama says he will treat it as a “suggestion.”

The legislation in question (S.2195), introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), denies entry into the US to ANYONE who has engaged in espionage or terrorism, or who poses a threat to our national security. The legislation was is specifically directed at Hamid Aboutalebi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations. Aboutalebi was one of the Muslim students who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 during the Carter administration, then tortured 52 American hostages for 444 days.

Aboutalebi insist that his involvement in the Embassy seizure was limited to translation and negotiation. And Iran has accused the US of setting a dangerous precedent by violating the right of sovereign states to designate representatives to the United Nations. Iranian UN Mission spokesman Hamid Babaei said Iran had sent a delegation to meet with the UN office of Legal Affairs, after filing a letter of complaint to the UN and its General Assembly Committee on Relations with the Host Country. Iran’s letter says that the US was breaching its obligations under the US-UN Host Country Agreement, which is a treaty and US law that generally requires the host country to allow access to diplomats and UN guest speakers. The 19-nation Host Country committee, chaired by Cyprus, can hold a hearing on the issue, but it cannot change the US decision.

Along with the legislation signing, Obama issued what is known as a signing statement. Presidents occasionally issue signing statements to assert that they believe part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or implement it in a way they see fit. Obama said he will treat the legislation as advisory out of concern it could interfere with his discretion to receive ambassadors. About the legislataion, he said, “Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’ concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our nation.”

Of Obama’s actions (included a caveat saying he would take the legislation as guidance – not necessarily as something he feels the need to enforce), Former Justice Department attorney J. Christopher Adams said that Obama’s actions amounted to “totally embarrassing hypocrisy.”

And, speaking of hypocrisy, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a chief supporter of the legislation, said Obama did the right thing by signing it into law. “This bill sends a loud and clear message to Iran, and to all others, that the United States will not allow people who harm Americans to come here and operate with diplomatic immunity.”

Does Obama have the legal ability to ignore legislation he disfavors? Not according to the US Constitution. In Article II, section 3, there is this: “… he [the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed …[.] The Constitution is very clear and unambiguous here. It says “the laws.” It doesn’t say “some laws,” or “laws that I favor.”

Obama, in his State of the Union speech in January, said “So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.” In January it was “without legislation,” meaning Executive Orders. The situation has now progressed to treating legislation as a suggestion. Obama says he is concerned about the legislation’s constitutionality. But recent actions suggest otherwise. The questions now are, “What’s next? King-ship?”

9 Responses to “Obama, The Imperial President (Guest Post)”

  1. 2

    John

    I always like to check when Dr John uses vague terms like “occasionally”
    Turns out that Bush used them just a bit more than that: perhaps 1200 sections in 150 Bills.
    Much much more commonly than Obama

  2. 3

    Nanny G

    @John:
    John, Look up an apples-to-apples comparison.
    Find a bill Bush signed that was supported by 100% of both the House and the Senate.
    THEN compare that signing statement to Obama’s on this one.
    (If such a bill ever came to bush’s desk, that is.)
    Obama’s signing statement in THIS case is Obama giving himself a complete abrogation of the content of the bill.
    IF it pleases Obama to do so.

  3. 4

    Redteam

    @Nanny G: True Nanny G, Bush only gave signing statements to give his opinion as to how a law should be interpreted to be in agreement with existing laws, etc. His opinion was not that a law should not be enforced. An example, for clarity might be. If he signed a law that set the speed limit as 60 mph, and he made a statement that for everyone to be consistent, if the radar showed a speed in excess of 65, that a ticket would be issued. His statement would not have said that no one should issue a speeding ticket.

  4. 7

    VoteOutIncumbents

    Does it drive anyone else crazy that had a GOP president done ten percent of the stuff Obama has done he’d likely already be out of office?

    Obama has given himself a line item veto. Something the SCOTUS denied Clinton. He refuses to have his DOJ enforce immigration law. He has set aside portions of the ACA…what?…forty or more times?

    What does a liberal have to do to get impeached?…and how much will the mainstream media be willing to ignore? The IRS scandal in itself should have had a concluding investigation by this time. It’s been almost a year. Yet the DOJ/IRS continue to drag their feet…AND THE MEDIA WON’T COVER IT!

    What’s happened to the country’s institutions?

    Folks, the system is no longer working.

  5. 9

    Nanny G

    Just How Much Beyond the Presidential Salary Do The Obamas Spend on Travel and Vacays?

    According to public information: “As of 2001, the president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment. The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.”
    Via FOIA:

    Since 2009, a total of $40,000,000 has been spent.

    This year’s Presidential golf outings to California and Florida, including $3,000,000 in flight expenses.

    2013′s Africa trip and Honolulu vacations for the Obamas cost $16,000,000- for flight expenses alone.

    2013′s Ireland trip tab: $8,000,000.

    Michelle Obama’s 2-day side trip to Dublin cost $250,000, including a $3,500 per-night suite.

    That’s 70 times what the president is allotted in compensation on a yearly basis.

    Is there any conceivable way to justify a monthly average travel and vacation budget of $625,000?

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/134589-criticize-presidents-vacation-spending-youre-probably-racist-something/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *