Skip to comments.Obama signs Ted Cruz bill into law, but says he won't enforce it
Posted on 04/19/2014 5:53:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill authored by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz that would bar an Iranian diplomat from entering the United States, but immediately issued a statement saying he won't enforce it.
Obama decided to treat the law as mere advice. "Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation," Obama said in his signing statement.
"Nevertheless, as President [George H.W.] Bush also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion."
Obama frequently criticized President George W. Bush for such signing statements during his 2008 campaign. Congress's job is to pass legislation," he said, as The Daily Beast recalled. "The president can veto it or he can sign it.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
This bastard needs impeaching right now.
Yes, but he will send armored divisions to terrorize a rancher and his family to make them comply with a perfidious regulation, which, AFAICT, was not a law passed by Congress.
then a trial.
President Barry and his “law of the month club”.
Yep. He is a real piece of work isn't he?
Lawless bass turd. He and his ****bird, Eric the Holder, don’t enforce any of our laws. What a corrupt regime. He’s just like the other Hussein.
If he can pick and choose which laws he’s going to enforce, we can pick and choose which laws we’re going to obey. No?
Bush Jr used signing statements a lot. He would sign legislation but issue signing statements that he may not enforce parts of it for whatever reasons.
He never got seriously challenged for it, nor will Obama. Congess is generally too lazy, fat and happy to assert their authority
This arrogant jerk has violated the Presidential Oath of Office so many times it is hard to count.
He should be removed from office.
Frankly, I would not be surprised if he refuses to leave office.
If he didn’t think it was constitutional (I believe it isn’t), he shouldn’t have signed it. He does not have the moral or legal right to ignore parts of any law he disagrees with. In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled the line item veto violates the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution in 1998. He isn’t called the chief executive for nothing. I’m thinking it might have something to do with his obligation to faithfully execute the law.
His failure to execute the law is grounds for impeachment of course, but the other law breakers in the US Senate and the Just Us Department have the chief lawbreaker’s back.
> they only enforce the laws they want too, and then act
> surprised when we only obey the laws we want too...
Were the “grazing fees” passed by Congress?
> not that i’m aware of...
That’s what I thought.
In other words, the “grazing fees” are just another exercise of perfidy from an out of control agency inventing “law” out of nothing.
Bottom line: is the Iranian terrorist at whom this bill made law was aimed, now going to present his credentials to our Secy State & be declared persona grata in spite of it?
Where’s Harry Reid? He’s big on law breaking.
The only thing is his legacy. I think he’d love to be the UN leader. Were it not for his ego, I do think he’d get us all blown to kingdom come.
Lead by example? Follow by example. Ignore laws at your leisure states!
> true, but the thread is about signing a law he doesn’t
> intend to enforce against letting a goathumper/terrorist
> into the country...
Yes, I’m sorry to rathole the thread, except that there was a reply that seemed to imply that 0bummer should not expect Bundy to obey the law if Little Mussolini himself won’t obey it.
However, the laws that 0bummer refuses to obey were duly passed by Congress and are fully binding, while Clive Bundy refuses to comply with a silly and capricious “regulation”, subject to change without notice by a rogue agency run by a collective of Kim Jong Un wannabes.
The government’s response to Bundy’s refusal to comply with the caprice of the totalitarian BLM hive, was to send a heavily armed tactical squad to threaten the lives of the Bundy family, plunder their assets, and destroy their personal property.
Meanwhile, the Kim Jong Un in chief gets to flaunt the law with impunity.
Obama declares himself above the law he signs himself
> Obama declares himself above the law he signs himself
A breathtaking exhibition of arrogance.
You’re absolutely correct. That statement alone should be grounds for impeachment.
Odumbo.....”issued a statement saying he won’t enforce it.”
Now will he any other of our laws he doesn’t agree with.
To me, DEFINITELY grounds for impeachment.
Now will somebody, anybody please get on with DOING IT?
The law is:
The traitor has needed to be impeached since late January, 2008.
“...and to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States.” That was his vow to become President. Just saying he won’t enforce ANY law should be enough to impeach him, whether it is pot law, a traffic law or criminal law.