Remember when presidential signing statements were considered bad, such as in this Boston Globe story back from August, 2006:
PREVIOUSLY, on the subject of "that was then, this is now":
Broadcast networks discover a new responsibility to air presidential speeches.
Saddam's connections to terror change depending on who is president.
Dems advocate 10-year effort in Iraq until they don't
Dems supported enhanced interrogation.
PREVIOUSLY, see also the general subject of hypocrisy.
The American Bar Association's House of Delegates voted yesterday to call on President Bush and future presidents not to issue ``signing statements" that claim the power to bypass laws, and it urged Congress to pass legislation to help courts put a stop to the growing practice.Or this story from January, 2008:
President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.If you thought that such deviltry would stop when The Messiah became president, you were wrong. At the Volokh Conspiracy, John Elwood reports that Pres. Obama is issuing signing statements and his statements are quite similar to Pres. Bush's. Obama's key innovation seems to be waiting until Friday evening, when much of the press corps has left for the weekend, to issue the signing statement.
PREVIOUSLY, on the subject of "that was then, this is now":
Broadcast networks discover a new responsibility to air presidential speeches.
Saddam's connections to terror change depending on who is president.
Dems advocate 10-year effort in Iraq until they don't
Dems supported enhanced interrogation.
PREVIOUSLY, see also the general subject of hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment