Skip to comments.Obama signs defense measure he once vowed to veto
Posted on 01/03/2013 10:14:34 AM PST by jazusamo
Backing down on a threatened veto, President Obama has signed into law a $633.3 billion defense bill with an attached a statement in which he serves notice to Congress that hell interpret the law as he sees fit on issues ranging from the transfer of terrorism detainees to objections of military chaplains against the new policy on gay service members.
Mr. Obama said in a signing statement late Wednesday that he agrees with the vast majority of provisions in the 680-page law. But he added, I do not agree with them all. He earlier had issued a veto threat to Congress if some of the objectionable provisions in the bill survived.
In spite of many veto threats in his first term, Mr. Obama has vetoed only two bills, both relatively inconsequential measures. When he ran for the presidency in 2008, Mr. Obama criticized President George W. Bush over the Republicans use of signing statements, arguing that Mr. Bush too often was ignoring the will of Congress.
The president said in his new message that he objects to Section 1027 of the law, which renews the prohibition against transferring terror detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba to the United States for any purpose.
I continue to oppose this provision, which substitutes the Congresss blanket political determination for careful and fact-based determinations, made by counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, of when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, Mr. Obama wrote...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well, in this case our leaders blocked our president from transferring terrorists here.
Without their action Feinstein's bill would have succeeded in getting terrorists to the States.
One point for our side (though they of course will receive credit from hardly anyone).
How do you think our leaders will react when Obama bypasses the will of congress with an EO to pass Section 1027, as he has done on several contentious issues already?
But for now, the GOP did the right thing in blocking him.
The GOP only rarely did the right thing when Reagan was in office, and they haven't done anything to protect the Constitution since.
The Department of Education was permanently established when Reagan had to give up the fight, he did however abolish the Double Nickles speed limit.
I will likely not live to see another President, whether I live past 2016 or not.
Obama shows very little concern over his political capital. This is whats scary.
He and his personal cabal are leading, his party, the media and an only reluctant GOP (in that order) seem to be following.
When GOP leaders collaborate with a President that is attempting to harm the Nation...yes, I despise them equally for their treachery
This is why he backed off on talk about social security...the polls were against him. He watches those things constantly.
Obama is very weak right now, though you won't detect that in seeing him on the trash TV shows. He is frantically trying to keep his caucus together and terrified that the Dems are going to split. The reason that the media keeps harping on the splits in the GOP is because they know they will have to fact their own soon and are trying to put it off at least until after the inauguration.
Although I don't know why he would worry about his popularity when anything that adversely affects it is shut down by the bottom feeder leftwing media. He has what amounts to carte blanche.
Of course he did. He's trying as hard as he can to keep the momentum going after the election. The fact that he's pushing these hard-left issues already tells me he's desperate to keep his base on board (they were already starting to veer last week when chaining SS to the CPI index was under discussion and that shook Obama...he quickly yanked the idea).
These are not the actions of someone secure in his power. He will not get the usual 100 days honeymoon this time around.
There's no need to say that. That's what he always does.
Just curious...does anybody know if the UCMJ wording against sodomy has been removed from the books by Congress yet?