The U.S. House of Representatives on July 9 voted almost unanimously to rebuke President Barack Obama over his June 24 signing statement openly declaring that he could ignore provisions of the law he was signing.

The bipartisan 429-2 vote was a direct result of Obama's assertion that  he could ignore restricitons on how the $106 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) could be used. In his signing statement, Obama claimed that “provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.”

The House vote rebuking Obama was on an amendment offered by Representative Kay Granger (R-Texas) that would add the following language to the Fiscal 2010 State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill (H.R. 3081): “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate an agreement in contravention of [law].”

Representative Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) explained the controversy on the House floor:

Last month through the 2009 supplemental bill, Congress provided an expansion of resources and powers to the International Monetary Fund as requested by President Obama. This included $108 billion in new funding and approval for the IMF to sell 13 million ounces of gold to fund their internal operating expenses. As part of that bill, and consistent with its oversight role, Congress gave the administration clear guidelines on how an expanded IMF should function. On June 24, President Obama decided to disregard those congressionally mandated guidelines. Upon signing the 2009 supplemental into law, the President issued a signing statement that said he would ignore sections 1110, 1112, 1403 and 1404 of the supplemental…. This Congress, Democrats and Republicans, should not allow any administration to disregard a statutory mandate, especially on issues of transparency and accountability.

President Obama’s ridiculous claim that he has “constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations… [and] engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations” is pure hyperbole from a constitutional standpoint. The signing statement is a clear attempt to say that he can make his own law — without Congress — with regard to how money is spent, in this case how a $108 billion loan guarantee would be conferred upon the International Monetary Fund. But the U.S. Constitution is unequivocal about who is in charge with regard to law-making, with Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution stating categorically:  “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Congress also has exclusive power over spending money, including even the current foolish gift to triple the size of the International Monetary Fund under Article I, Section 9, which states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” and under Congress’ exclusive power to “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

By way of contrast, the President’s power to conduct foreign relations is relegated to that of someone who is restricted by the will of Congress. The constitutional provisions granting the President power to represent the United States abroad are predicated upon the support of Congress at every turn in Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls ... but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

That Obama’s signing statement was a clear assertion of dictatorial powers was recognized by Republican and Democrat alike in Congress. Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) stressed that “we do this not on behalf of this institution, but literally on behalf of democracy, on behalf of the process by which people get elected and deliberate and do this. And there is a kind of a unilateralism, in an undemocratic, unreachable way, to these signing statements that is the opposite of what we do here.”

When even his fellow liberal Democrats are rebuking him with such strong language, stating that his actions are a threat to free government itself, then you know Obama has really gone off the dictatorially deep end!

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Conservatives Are A Plague, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Lee Gonzales said:

Youth are Liberals? How is it "folly" for "Liberals" in Congress,(nearly everyone of them in this instance) and for the "conservatives" in congress who did likewise, to stand up for the doctrine of "separation of powers"? Only a fool lost in the cult of personality can be blinded by such an obvious grab for power by a chief executive whose promises are breaking up quicker than San Fran Nan's mirror.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 11, 2009
Votes: +14

Susan said:

	... How is this folly or even put at the doorstep of either party? It clearly states this will bring the presidential powers back to the limits allowed under the Constitution. Limits that both sides have ignored time and again.
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 11, 2009
Votes: +8

Flu-Bird said:

	Open mouth insert foot Looks like OBAMA has just put his foot in his mouth and the TJ dont taste too good
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 11, 2009
Votes: +4

Leatherneck said:

	... the powers within the United States Government were divided into three parts by the founding fathers for a reason it is high time we got back to them no one branch should have power over another all of the czar's have to go they are not in any way shape or form Constitutional
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 11, 2009
Votes: +13

Zambonidragrace said:

	Hmm some of the links don't work I was trying to read some of the text of comments in the official record and for some strange reason the links don't work. Funny how that works isn't. With such transparency in this administration I would expect nothing less than for them to hide this d**ning information.
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2009
Votes: +3

Big M said:

... I don't consider the constitution to be legally binding on anybody, so the "federal government" has neither legitimacy nor legal authority. However, if Congress wants to pretend that the constitution means anything, they should flat out tell any "president" that there is no provision for "signing statements" in that document, and that any attempt to use them will result in immediate impeachment. Yeah, that'll happen.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 16, 2009
Votes: -4

Sharon said:

BIG M SAID Big M says "I don't consider the constitution to be legally binding on anybody, so the 'federal government' has neither legitimacy nor legal authority. Sorry you feel that way, M. Why don't you try moving to a country that doesn't have a Constitution specifically written to protect its people? You know, move to a dictatorial country. Come back in a year (unless you love it there) and let us know what you think then.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 23, 2009
Votes: +1

RobbieK said:

	... And hopefully that will be the vote tally when we throw Obama out!
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 26, 2009
Votes: +1

chi Turbo ceramic flat iron said:

chi Turbo ceramic flat iron When a very miserly man nicknamed the chi hair tools "stingy ghost" died and went to hell the Yama King reproached him, saying,chi flat iron "You stingy ghost! When you were alive, you clung hard to everything and wouldn't give to anyone.chi flat irons Even when you saw others in poverty and misery, you refused to offer them help. Also,chi hair straightener you didn't take good care of your parents, relatives or friends and let them suffer and starve.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 30, 2009 | url
Votes: +0