Video: Flashback to Obama’s view on rule through executive declaration

posted at 8:48 am on March 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Although in this clip from Breitbart and Naked Emperor News discusses signing statements and not executive orders, it’s hard not to equate the two. After all, in the context of the EO that Bart Stupak demanded, the EO goes farther than signing statements do. Barack Obama agreed yesterday essentially to violate a law that Congress was in the middle of passing — and the Democrats in Congress cheered for him to do exactly that as a means to hoodwink the last few Representatives they needed to pass the bill:

In fact, Obama has been using signing statements too, despite his ten years of teaching Constitutional law. So much for his adherence to the separation-of-powers theory. Maybe his students should ask for a refund.

More to the point, though, this EO will never have any effect. As a host of actual Constitutional authorities have already made clear, any court challenge will wind up with the government forced to obey the law Congress passed and the President signed for the same reasons Obama states in this clip. Congress makes law, not the President, and when an EO conflicts with the law, it’s the law that prevails. Otherwise, the President really does become a “monarch”, as Obama states in this clip, and Congress becomes an advisory board.

Obama knows this. The Republicans know this. Hell, even Bart Stupak knows this, but he just needed an excuse to change his vote, and everyone knows it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

He wouldn’t do this if he didn’t think he could get away with it. This goes way beyond anything we can comprehend in a sane society.

tomas on March 22, 2010 at 10:10 AM

In this order.

Take over the seats in 2010.
Repeal the healthcare bill.
Begin the impreachment proceedings. We know who.
Vote in a conservative Republican for 2012.
Repair and undo the damages the idiots have done in Congress and WH.

Kokonut on March 22, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Setting aside any grand plans to capture Congress and make Joe Biden President, let me just recap the facts:

- Abortions are bad (I assume we all agree on that)
- The President has issued an executive order making it a little more difficult to get an abortion

And this is bad — how?

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Mr Joe:

Are you gonna spam that comment on every stinkin’ thread here?

Sekhmet on March 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM

But, no, Obama is not being hypocritical here.

Tom_Shipley on March 22, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Yes he is.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/10/nation/na-signing-statements10

Del Dolemonte on March 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM

The President doesn’t have the authority to override a law with an executive order.

single stack on March 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM

The President doesn’t have the authority to override a law with an executive order.

single stack on March 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM

So what you are lamenting, then, is that Obama is not powerful enough to defend the unborn?

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM

So what you are lamenting, then, is that Obama is not powerful enough to defend the unborn?
factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM

The end does NOT justify the means, no matter how noble the end result. The means of achieving that end become precedent. Precedent is the way our judiciary interprets the laws. Laws become meaningless. And the process that was set out by our founders 221 years ago no longer matters.

The argument you put forth is specious, short-sighted, and cannot comprehend past the immediate result. In short, it is an immature view of reality.

Tennman on March 22, 2010 at 10:53 AM

JoeNBC

RT @HalosNYC: @JoeNBC Aetna up 52% in last year, Humana up 100%, United up 65%. This bill really goes after the insurance industry!

ninjapirate on March 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Well not entirely — we’re lamenting the fact that the turd is a liar and used a meaningless maneuver (because it will be struck down the minute it’s challenged in court) to convince some moron named Stupak that the bill would protect the unborn… and that said moron (Stupak) and the media bought it.

D2Boston on March 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM

The end does NOT justify the means, no matter how noble the end result.[...]

Tennman on March 22, 2010 at 10:53 AM

So when Pres. Bush issued an EO back in 2003 in which he prohibited the State Department from giving aid to family planning organizations abroad if they also provided abortions — that was wrong, too? Noble end, ignoble means?

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM

D2Boston on March 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Yeah, I think that’s a fair assessment. I wonder what Stupak’s plan was. Because right now the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers hate him in equal measure. He’s become famous, but I can’t imagine he made many friends in the process.

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 11:01 AM

- The President has issued an executive order making it a little more difficult to get an abortion

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM

The fact that this EO is meaningless, as EO’s can’t over turn existing laws.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Did Stupak not remember that Obama was the guy that voted three times to kill babies that made it through a last minute abortion?

jukin on March 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM

So what you are lamenting, then, is that Obama is not powerful enough to defend the unborn?

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM

The concern troll, hijacking a thread while pretending to agree, sort of.

No, we are lamenting the fact that Obama used a blatant lie to give cover to Democrats to vote for his bill.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM

So when Pres. Bush issued an EO back in 2003 in which he prohibited the State Department from giving aid to family planning organizations abroad if they also provided abortions — that was wrong, too? Noble end, ignoble means?

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Bush runs the state dept. So this EO was within his authority. Obama’s isn’t. Not surprised that you refuse to see the difference.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Begin the impreachment proceedings.
Kokonut on March 22, 2010

What’s the high crime and misdemeanor?
Be specific. Cite the U.S.C. if possible.

chimney sweep on March 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I hope Stupak slept as well as I did last night. If he did, he’s gonna be a grumpy gus today!

capejasmine on March 22, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Lately I’ve had this huge problem with Obama’s face.

rollthedice on March 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM

The President has issued an executive order making it a little more difficult to get an abortion

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM

It’s meaningless. We’re still going to be paying taxes to fund abortions. The blood of this is on all of our hands. It has been since the beginning of Obama’s presidency, when he re-enacted with an EO to fund abortions here, and internationally.

capejasmine on March 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Del Dolemonte on March 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Del, did you read the LATimes story? Did you read what I wrote? Do you know that Obama is going to issue an executive order, not use a signing statement in this case?

Even conceding Ed’s assumption that there’s not much difference between a signing statement and an executive order in this case, Obama is still not contradicting himself. The EO is a clarification of language already in the bill. Republicans are right in that I don’t think it holds much weight in a court of law. But since it essentially restates what’s in the law already, it doesn’t challenge the meaning of the law. It’s basically Obama emphasizing the abortion language that already exists in the bill.

Obama’s and other Dems issues with Bush’s signing statements were that often challenged the bill being passed, essentially saying Bush would not follow certain aspects of the bill that related to the executive branch. That is what Obama called unconstitutional. Issuing some executive order that reemphasizing language already in the bill is not even close to being the same thing.

Tom_Shipley on March 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Trying reading and listening and you would know this EO has less value than the ink used to prepare and sign it.

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Tennman on March 22, 2010 at 10:53 AM

What means specifically are you talking about?

Tom_Shipley on March 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Ok, NOW can we deal with the reality?

Stupak did, which is why he voted yes. He knew this was a lie from the beginning, and he was given the cover he asked for (not demanded, he was gonna vote yes regardless).

People called me an eeyore for insisting there was nothing we could do to stop this bill. Some idiot who protested the Vietnam war and voted for carter, then admitted it, even had the stones to call me naive . Who looks naive now?

Let us now begin the process of making all this go away, which means seeing what’s right in front of our faces, and stop calling our own side names because you don’t like the reality they’re pointing out (accurately, AGAIN).

runawayyyy on March 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM

NOVEMBER 2010!

Fire the s.o.b.’s!

And 2012, ~send The Boy King Barry back to community organizing.

profitsbeard on March 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

factoid on March 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Two words: Hyde Amendment.

Now, let’s talk about what an EO does. It is an order signed by the president — provided for by Congress — to allow for a president to make rules in keeping with the authority granted to the executive branch by the *lawmaking* Congress. Not to abrogate the law, but to further clarify Congress’ intent.

The 2003 EO made it impossible for the state department — and executive branch responsibility — to pay for abortions outside of the country when it could not do it within the country. Again, not an abrogation of the law, but a clarification and supplementation of the intended law that Congress routinely enacts, namely the Hyde Amendment. It has been attached as a rider since 1976, and it specifically disallows federal funds to be used for abortions.

Next wrong example?

Tennman on March 22, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Tom_Shipley on March 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Specifically using an EO to directly contradict a law passed by Congress. It can be undone in a minute if ever challenged. When you don’t play by the rules, the rules tend to reach back and bite you on the posterior.

That’s what I mean.

Tennman on March 22, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2