Posted on 01/12/2009 4:57:14 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Obama to reverse Bush executive orders By: Ben Smith and Lisa Lerer January 12, 2009 06:15 PM EST
President-elect Barack Obama is expected to move swiftly to reverse executive orders regarding torture of terror suspects, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial security policies, sources close to his transition said, in dramatic gestures aimed at reversing President Bush’s accumulation of executive power.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said he’s been informed that President Obama will support his proposed legislation to make public some opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which issued some of the Bush Administration's most sweeping claims of executive power. Obama also has promised to limit President Bush's practice of using "signing statements" to amend legislation.
"Every day we get indications that they're serious about reversing the abuses of the Constitution," Feingold, a harsh Bush critic, told Politico. Feingold said Obama's staff told him to expect executive orders rapidly reversing Bush policies on the interrogation and detention of terror suspects, and on keeping the records of past presidents secret. He declined to be more specific.
"I don't know in what order or how fast" Obama’s executive orders could come, he said. "It'll be important that a couple of them be done immediately, and I think they will be, to show there's a strong break from the current policy."
Chris Lu, executive director of Obama’s transition team, told supporters in a conference call earlier this month that Obama’s aides have “started developing executive orders that the pres elect is considering –not only ones the President-elect will sign after January 20, but also ones we will want to repeal."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
They won't be so controversial after their repeal leads to several thousand American deaths.....we'll re-open Gitmo just to have a place to put ZeroBama and his merry gang.
As of 2007, all presidents combined had issued about 600 signing statements (I'm guessing that means #1 - Washington through #42 - Clinton). President Bush as of less than three-quarters of the way through his two terms, had issued more than 800.
That statistic alone indicates a very strange departure from tradition. More odd, even, when you consider that the President's own party controlled both houses of Congress for a good part of his two terms.
I for one am concerned about a rogue presidency in this day and age, with this cast of characters.
Reference on signing statements: http://www.cdi.org/laws/fleming-presidential-signing-statements-022807.html
Exactimundo.
“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution,”
Oh? Perhaps he could point out the place in the Constitution that allows him to meddle in the economy? Or raise taxes? Or mess with gun rights?
How many Bush appointees will he fire? Of course he won’t be criticized for it when he does.
EXACTLY. I have cursing, screaming fits when I occasionally take a deep breath and submerge myself into the swamp at DU and they're whining and moaning about Bush subverting the law by his signing statements. Signing statements aren't worth the paper they're (not) written on. God what a bunch of drooling, babbling fools we're forced to tolerate as our countrymen.
I think a signing statement is entirely appropriate for a president to issue, although not a constitutional procedure. At least it lets everyone know how the president intends to enforce the law, at least until he’s overruled by a court.
I maybe don’t get quite as upset as you, but the idiocy involved in the misinterpretation of this issue and of the “unitary presidency” is just amazing. :)
If an attack occurs, every stupid asshole that voted for Obama will have blood on his/her hands.
Mexico City policy is what I am keeping an eye out for. If history is our guide that will be on Obama’s “what to do on the first day” list. Oh boy, federal funds (Our sweat taken from us) going overseas to fund murder for convenience, got to love the American electorate./s
The Mexico City policy that Reagan created (Using existing Acts of Congress through global aid) by EO does regulate federal funding of abortion overseas but not domestically. In order for domestic spending of abortions the Hyde Amendment needs to be wiped out first (Through FOCA).
Contrary to popular belief the President isn't all that powerful without Congressional approval. In fact the President is made to be a impotent creature with the right amount of resistance in Congress or the Supreme Court.
My priest was even more direct. He told the members of our parish that if they voted for someone who is for abortion, then the legislation that is passed during that administration on life issues is their own.
I agree with that as well.
“Which states are lining up to take the Gitmo detainees?”
Good point. Prisons are Big Business here in Wisconsin. It’s a ‘dirty little secret’ the ‘Rats never talk about, but it’s true.
I’d love to see some of those sandbox dirtbags milling around in the Exercise Yard, up to their butts in snow and ice at -15 below, LOL!
Justice! :)
Ummm...do you feel the same about those of us who voted for President Bush in 2000?
I like the howls of protest at Rendition and the Echelon program, which were actually Clinton Policies I agreed with.
There’s certainly been no lack of hot air vented over many of those things!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.