Obamateurism of the Day
posted at 8:05 am on January 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
We’ve certainly noted Barack Obama’s sudden affinity for presidential signing statements after taking office on several occasions, having vented his spleen at George W. Bush’s habit of challenging Congressional legislation without offering a veto. This is just one example:
Q: When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signage [sic] to get your way?
OBAMA: Yes. [Applause] Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. You know, we’ve got a government designed by the founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a President that’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or courts that are too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’ job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do is part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, is, he’s been saying, “Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says ‘I don’t agree with this part’ or ‘I don’t agree with that part.’ I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.” Uh, that’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.
We already knew that Obama would act as if he’d never made this promise and issue a signing statement when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, which Obama did over the holiday weekend while on vacation in Hawaii. But the signing statement itself is a real piece of work, especially in light of the lecture above from the so-called Constitutional scholar. Obama didn’t just object to one passage in the large and complex bill. Obama declared seventeen entire sections to either violate the constitutional separation of powers or interfere with the prerogatives and duties of the executive. Yes, you read that right — seventeen sections, all of which Obama declared that he will “interpret” to his own perspective, even though signing statements give him no such power.
Er, that’s the reason the founders gave you the veto, champ. One section in an otherwise vital bill perhaps might be understandable, but griping that seventeen violate the Constitution and/or separation of powers and then signing the bill is a splendid demonstration of sheer impotence, as well as hypocrisy … two of Obama’s signature characteristics.

Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.
Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!









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
The New, New Math: When seventeen equals Zero.
NeighborhoodCatLady on January 4, 2012 at 8:08 AM
We just have to beat him this year…
OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:09 AM
I just can’t STAND HIM ANY MORE!!
ABO 2012 [but hopefully, President Perry :) ]
Sue Doenim on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM
Hypocrite in chief
Will our gop candidate note this on the stump?
Please!
cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM
If I had to come home each night to that woman, I would be too.
Oh, you are talking about what an empty suit he is. Well . . . never mind.
DuctTapeMyBrain on January 4, 2012 at 8:11 AM
ABO
cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:12 AM
he is a hypocrite.
annyinboulder on January 4, 2012 at 8:14 AM
You think some of it would have stuck in Obama’s memory. But, of course, we all know that Obama does not believe or obeys the US Constitution. We see that every single day including using Operataion Fast and Furious to “prove” that the government needs to come out after the Second Amendment because of all those guns that made it over the border. Never mind it was Obama’s own people that were arming the Mexican drug cartels and laundering the cartel’s money!!!
Put another way, If Obama believes in the Constitution, Eric Holder would not still be Attorney General.
Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM
impotence & hypocrisy, that about sums Obama up, and to think he considers himself the 4th best president evah.
RAGIN CAJUN on January 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM
ROTFLMAO!!!
You also owe me for the laundry bill on the shirt I just got coffee all over.
belad on January 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM
He is a politician – what else do we need to know!
OldEnglish on January 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM
President
ZeroSeventeen.hillsoftx on January 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM
hahaha
Yes, I promise not to put up a billboard in the Rose Garden denouncing the bill.
itsnotaboutme on January 4, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Sweet wordplay, Ed!
itsnotaboutme on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Shouldn’t that be chump?
KLang on January 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Come on, America, make my next birthday the best ever. VOTE THIS SLIMEBALL OUT OF OFFICE!! Yes, the election really is on my birthday this year, but I’m not saying how old I’ll be! :)
Benedict Nelson on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM
I think the bigger issue is his ability to order the detention of US Citizens anywhere in the World, and hold them indefinitely and without charge.
Why isn’t this getting more widespread coverage?
Key West Reader on January 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM
With MSM outlets like Politico, Huffpo and MSNBC covering his back, he can walk back anything with his infamous expiration date on it. The only outlets that will magnify his hypocrisy are the real conservatives ones.
On a side note, Gretchen, once again, tried to keep DSW coloring between the lines in her interview on Fox. Now that the dust from Iowa has settled, I can clearly see how Mitt lost last night, according to Miss DNC Chair. Yeesh… the woman is nails on a chalkboard.
VietVet_Dave on January 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM
This is impossible because in 2009 Obama stated that he was honest to a fault. No one noticed at the time so I brought it back.
Th GOP’s book has a flaw. They have to go after Obama in a more personal way instead of the theme he didn’t keep his promises. GOP to earth…what politician does? They have to raise his unfavoribilty ratings.
Barack Obama is Honest to a Fault
The fourth best president 60 Minutes clip would be a great start. Especially since Granny Jan and Jihad Kitty/me coined the phrase in her video on 12/13. Link under the honest video.
No Niks on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Is it OK now to say this kind of stuff is (expected)?
docflash on January 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Ot:Michelle cancels Iowa trip?
Via drudge
cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:36 AM
Agree, but I think it’s just one of several “bigger issues”. Obama’s recent threats to ignore congress and just do what he wants done are very concerning and very dangerous, along with the message in signing statements that he’s going to interpret laws passed by congress in the ways he wants to. Put those together with ordering the detention of US citizens and lethal gun-running to undermine the 2nd amendment and what emerges is a president who has put himself above the Constitution and the law and who does not believe in three co-equal branches of government. This man is dangerous and must be removed from office.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM
There must have been one real great big ‘goodie’ in that bill for him to sign it with 17 parts he didn’t agree with. If I was in a campaign for any office I’d be pounding his hypocrisy with every example I could come up with every single day, and throw in the 90+ rounds of golf, every Wednesday night parties, and insults to allies.
Kissmygrits on January 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM
The end of that interview was great! “we did”
tinkerthinker on January 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Out of curiosity, how many sections are in the bill?
17/20 is very different than 17/2000.
Scott H on January 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM
I disagree. Too many idiots still like Obama personally. It is better to point out that he is a incompetent hypocrite and liar. The GOP needs to remind the Obama-lovers that he’s far too smart to waste his time on a second term when the world needs him for a higher calling.
Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 8:41 AM
you’d think that he would’ve left such dirty work to the autopen……
ted c on January 4, 2012 at 8:44 AM
It’s gone past the point where I don’t like JugEars…I find him revolting!
KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2012 at 8:45 AM
Yessiree, that thar is one long-winded, hypocritical “signing statement”.
In other words:
♫♪ “Oooo oo that smell, can you smell that smell?” ♫♪
Yep. And it’s the epítomé of hypocrisy that reeks. Heaven forbid that Ø’Bambi give the eevil GW Bush some credit. After all, the Black Narcissus knows more about the military than his predecessor.
Sure
Just UndØ It.
~(Ä)~
Karl Magnus on January 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Actually, it should be
no more B.O. Things stink enough already.
We need a “Deodorant candidate” to take the stink out of big government.
ProfShadow on January 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Everything has a purpose.
I like to think that Mr. Obama’s purpose on earth is to demonstrate how wrong liberals were about Mr. Bush’s presidency.
Everything Mr. Bush did that the left damned, Mr. Obama has come to embrace. Troop surge. Check. Indefinite detention. Check. Renewing the lease on Gitmo. Check. Expansion of unfunded medical entitlements. Check.Historic deficits. Check. Bush tax rates. Check. Crony capitalism. Double check. And today signing statements, check.
And to hear Mr. Obama tell it, after three years in office he is still managing the Bush economy.
DGB
Damian Bennett on January 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM
I figure one reason we’ve never seen Obama’s school records is that he failed/got a D in Constitutional Law.
Not quite sure how he ended up teaching it thought…Affirmative Action or something that doesn’t require any actual job-related credentials?
ProfShadow on January 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Lets not wait till November…how many times can he threaten the very basic framework of the constitution before somebody in DC gets the cajones to begin the impeachment process…do we have to wait till we find the blue dress….geez!
LaRepublican on January 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM
*crud* thought –> though
ProfShadow on January 4, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Assuming we get to vote in November…..
ProfShadow on January 4, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Slimeball zer0 still being a slimeball. Can’t teach an old community
organizeragitator new tricks.MisterElephant on January 4, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Yes, the danger signals are flashing more often lately. I’d add SOPA/PIPA to the list.
petefrt on January 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Yes, and I promise I’ll still respect you in the morning.
Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Did he sign it on a caddy’s back?
katy the mean old lady on January 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM
That’s because he didn’t read it.
the_souse on January 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM
And the lsm continues with but the people like him personally meme
Really?
cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 9:06 AM
Does Congress have any recourse? As an earlier poster pointed out, it would be nice to know how many total sections there were in this bill, but still. If a president has the authority/chutzpah to invalidate entire sections he doesn’t like, shouldn’t Congress also have the ability to reassess the entire bill?
RobertE on January 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM
If we’re going to let him rule by decree, why not just dispense with the Constitution? At some point, this obnoxious little twerp is going to command that we all line the streets and cheer, while “Obama the Magnificent” rides by on his taxpayer-funded, croney-produced golden litter, borne by painted Royal Elephants. (A sharp stick in the eye of Republicans.)
When he’s finally gone, I hope we follow Ancient Egypt’s practice of chiseling away every reference to former unpopular Pharaohs . . . just as though their governments had never existed. Oh, what a consoling thought. I want a job on the Chisel Crew.
Wish I’d never heard the name, “Obama.”
TheClearRiver on January 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Me too!
Signing a bill and picking the sections you will actually follow can’t be legal. It’s the same as signing a contract and choosing which parts apply to you.
katablog.com on January 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM
That’s because he was a “lecturer”, not a professor, not even an adjunct prof.
Oh, and the ubiquitous affirmative action hirings gave both the IncØmpetent Øs the typical ChicagØ patronage jobs.
BTW, MØochelle refused to represent “Barney” (the hugely successful purple dinosaur) for the law firm that was stupid enough to hire her. Did they fire her and hire someone humble, hungry, and competent? Nope.
~(Ä)~
Karl Magnus on January 4, 2012 at 9:26 AM
CorporatePiggy on January 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM
It’s so good to be The King!
GarandFan on January 4, 2012 at 9:46 AM
@Karl Magnus
Interesting, especially since at the small private university I teach at (30th year, actual tenured professor*) we vet anyone who enters the classroom to teach.
Yet B.O. got a pass…or something…
But then, Obama’s word is his bond. Unfortunately, it is a “teflon bond.”
*yeah, I know…a libertarian professor…how did I sneak through?
ProfShadow on January 4, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Bald face lie.
FireBlogger on January 4, 2012 at 9:53 AM
I don’t really understand this, does he actually do things that the law says he can’t or does he not bother to enforce stuff he doesn’t agree with? I assume if he acted in violation of a law it could be fought in court. That would be pretty interesting on a Bill with his own signature. Would the courts (depending on which one) laugh at signing statement?
Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 9:53 AM
@ProfShadow on January 4, 2012
Even 30 years ago when I was still in grad school, the Univ. of Chicago was known as the bastion of Leftism, including what some (like G. Beck) discovered “Critical Theory”. That theory is similarly called: “Conflict Theory” for a reason (although Beck has no idea). They’re acolytes of The Frankfurt School.
Conflict Theory:
The world view personified by Barry and Michelle ginning up class warfare.
~(Ä)~
Karl Magnus on January 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM
And now the news that he IS going to make the “recess appointment” of the Consumer “Protection” dude.
climbnjump on January 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Obama has Harry Reid, blocking for him in the Senate; Holder blocking for him in the DOJ; and by the time the Supreme Court finally gets involved, the evil he planned for us is done. Zero’s good at using our system of government against us, because he has no respect for it, himself. If he wins another term and stuffs the Supreme Court with more liberals, we’re finished as a republic. At least, we’re finished, if we play by the rules. There’s a point at which the damage can’t be reversed by the vote.
TheClearRiver on January 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM
RNC add this one to the playbook and crank up the add machine.
These things tend to write themselves don’t they.
D-fusit on January 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Very good FAQs on Presidential Signing Statements for those interested. Includes a list of Obama’s. Looks like he’s signed 21 of these.
Democrats routinely accused G W Bush of using the statements to skirt or re-write Congressional legislation whenever he asserted, in a formulation first used by Ronald Reagan, that he would would not act contrary to Constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch,” i.e. Congress cannot pass laws undermining the Constitutional authority of the President (War Powers Act anyone?). Naturally, one expects Democrats to do or be doing exactly the thing of which they accuse their enemies. And so Obama… blanket objection to seventeen entire sections of a single law. Does anyone doubt that he’ll completely ignore them?
If he does, in addition to the court challenges his failure should engender, seem to me this should be added to the list of his impeachable offenses: failure to “faithfully execute the laws,” Constitution, Article II, section 3, to uphold which he also took an oath.
Dems also claimed that Bush had signed more statements than any President in history. In fact, that honor goes to Bill Clinton.
de rigueur on January 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Scratch a liberal, find a hypocrite.
jukin3 on January 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM
I actually think some of the anger on this signing statement question is misdirected.
I would direct most of the ire at Congress, which insists on passing thousand page, multi-billion dollar omnibus legislation. If Congress would start passing shorter, simpler, focused bills, then we could reasonably demand that presidents veto the bills they don’t like and sign the ones they don’t mind.
I did a fair amount of research for an undergraduate honors thesis on the Iran-Contra affair, and one of the problems that confronted President Reagan was that Congress tacked the Boland Amendment (prohibiting aid to the Nicaraguan Contras) onto a huge, omnibus bill that included entirely unrelated things like transportation funding. Reagan’s apologists who also favored supporting the Contras later claimed that Reagan ought to have vetoed this bill and shut down the government over the Contra funding question. I think that’s a silly way to run a government- Reagan should have had the option of signing or vetoing discrete bills that dealt with each topic.
Publius 2.0 on January 4, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Right on, Ed. Another point well made against the ‘Liar in Chief’. But are the Libs listening?
boogieboy on January 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM
As a former Chicagoan I can say this with confidence…
This, my dear friends is Chicago politics unleashed on a national scale. Anyone who did not think Obama would be this kind of politician was deeply midguided. I am, unfortunately, not surprised by these antics – I am appalled and dismayed by them, but not surprised. I only pray that we get ourselves together and vote him out!
mlewis7299 on January 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Um, labeling him as an incompetent hypocrite and liar is pretty much going after him personally. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
The GOP needs to hammer him with this stuff, both because of the blatant hypocrisy but because of the damning admission: “what Bush is doing is unconstitutional, I know the Constitution, I won’t do it.” Well, if what he is doing is unconstitutional then the remedy is obvious.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon on January 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Obama has discovered that the car drives just fine in the ditch, if he just pretends there is no Constitutional road next to it, and the little problem that it not going anywhere because he has wreaked it.
Franklyn on January 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Notice how Barry never referred to George Bush as President Bush. Always called him by name. Never gave him the title President. It’s a typical Saul Alinsky move. Notice how he did it with Senator McCain during the election. Called him John all the time. Watch to see if he refers to Mitt Romney as Governor. I say from now on we call him Obama, Barak Obama, or Barak.
runner2300 on January 4, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Is this true? He taught the Constitution for 10 years? He must have 100s of former students out there. Surely there is one who can give us some insight into his curriculum?
Ditkaca on January 4, 2012 at 1:03 PM
With signing statements and recess appointments, Obama continues to show contempt for the Constitutional separation of powers.
I really, really detest this man and his administration.
susietwo on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM
This. But he said he wouldn’t use it. Riiiight! There’s always an expiration date on everything he says. When will it be on this?
Peppa Pig on January 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Because it’s a primary function of the Ministry of Propaganda to keep us in the dark..?
affenhauer on January 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Which Constitution was that, Zimbabwe?
jnelchef on January 4, 2012 at 3:20 PM
LIAR-IN-CHIEF!!!
Colatteral Damage on January 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM
All that golf is wearing barry out. He has gone from looking as handsome Sam Cook in college , to Erkel in the Senate and now on to looking like Red Fox, without a stop at Lamontville, do not pass go, do not collect a sack of wings and a bottle of Ripple , and do not even try to be funny except when you can shoot down like a bully and coward.
borntoraisehogs on January 5, 2012 at 1:53 AM