“In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were ’surprised’ and ‘chagrined’ by Obama’s statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.”
The letter stated, “During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the President’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce. We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”
Surprise, surprise, surprise. It turns out Obama likes signing statements just like Bush did. The article tries to give some cover to King Obama by saying he's issued 'fewer' of them than Bush did. But, since the Democrats control both houses of Congress, its very logical that Obama would be issuing fewer than Bush. Bush probably issued fewer back when the Republicans controlled Congress too.
The issue is over restrictions that the Congress placed on funding for the IMF and World Bank in the last war, death, and destruction funding bill that the Democrats passed in Congress.
The founders were quite careful to put control of money and how its spent in the hands of Congress. They specifically said that all funding bills had to originate in the House of Representatives, as the body who's members are most closely elected by the people. They knew that control of how money is spent is a key function of government, and they tried to keep that as close to the people as possible.
So, now we have King Obama saying he doesn't give a damn what the legislature said about how he could spend the money, and that instead he's going to do whatever he wants to do. Its good to be the King.
And, its exactly what King Dubya said.
And, you can now bet any money that the government and Wall Street haven't taken from you that the next time there's a Republican president that they'll cite Obama's precedent about how they can also ignore Congress and do anything they want to do.
If we lived in a true democracy and nation of laws, these congressional leaders would be starting impeachment proceedings instead of sending a weak letter to the White House. Of course, these are the same Democratic congressional leaders who ok'd Bush's signing statements by refusing to impeach him. I'd almost guess that if I did some research I might find that they sent a weak, do-nothing letter to King Dubya as well.
At some point, failing to fulfill your constitutional duties and instead just sending weak letters constitutes approval of the actions. You either stand for the Constitution and the rule of law, or you don't. Its like the old line about being 'half-pregnant'. If these Congressional leaders fail to do anything substantial to end this practice, then they support it by their inaction.
