The Emperor's Seven Signing Statements

Lawless detention is the least of it. State secrets and warrantless spying scrape the surface. Drone attacks and ongoing torture
begin to touch it. But central to the power of an emperor, and the
catastrophes that come from the existence of an emperor, is the
elimination of any other force within the government. Signing
statements eliminate congress. Not that congress objects. Asking
congress to reclaim its power produces nervous giggles.

Look at how the latest war supplemental funding bill was passed. The
Emperor's people wrote most of the bill. The Emperor combined it with
the IMF banker bailout. The Emperor threatened and bribed his way to
deals with enough congress members to pass it. The Emperor preemptively
told other nations the bill would pass and then badgered congress with
the claim that this nation (He, the nation) would be damaged if he
turned out to have lied. The Emperor lied to congress members and the
public that this would be the last war supplemental bill. Congress
members claimed to back it because it was the last one (not that this
made the slightest sense), and others openly, proudly, and obliviously
declared that they were switching their votes to yes in order to please
the Emperor.

When the bill came to Emperor Barack he signed it and released his
sixth and only legal signing statement announcing that he'd signed it.
Two days later (Fridays being the favored day for signing statements)
Obama released his seventh signing statement, claiming to have signed
the same bill on that day as well, but perhaps beginning to establish
the precedent that "signing statements," like "executive orders," can
be issued at any time.

The seventh signing statement did what the first five had done: it
illegally and unconstitutionally altered the law in favor of bestowing
illegal powers on the Emperor. The seven statements are posted here. Here's the heart of the seventh statement:

"[P]rovisions 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."

An executive would be someone who executed the laws of congress,
suggesting that a different capitalized E word is actually intended,
that "Executive" is now a stand-in for "Emperor." Similarly,
"constitutional" in this context refers to dictionary.com's third
definition of "constitution", namely "the aggregate of a person's
physical and psychological characteristics." In other words,
"constitutional authority" is "imperial authority" derived from the
character of the Emperor. We know this because the U.S. Constitution
does not create any presidential authority to conduct foreign relations
(only to "receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers") but does
require the advice and consent and two-thirds approval of the Senate in
order to make treaties, and does give congress the power "to regulate
Commerce with foreign nations" as well as complete power over the
raising and spending of public funds, not to mention the power "To make
all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof."

The sections of this latest law tossed out by Obama were ploys to
win the bill's passage, including requirements that he work to
strengthen labor and environmental standards at, and report to congress
on the activities of, the IMF and the World Bank. Unlike an emperor, an
executive would be required by the U.S. Constitution to "take Care that
the Laws by faithfully executed," stated by candidate Barack Obama
thus:

"I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

Obama's first signing statement made part of the law his right to
use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in
"new" and "far-reaching" ways that he would "initiate," as well as the
understanding that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch
-- rather than congress -- would oversee the activities of the
executive branch, or as Obama calls it "the Federal Government."

Obama's second signing statement declared his intention to violate
dozens of sections of the law he was signing, including sections
providing for the spending of funds, sections related to the creation
of international treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against
whistleblowers.

Obama's third signing statement, on the "Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009," announced his intention to violate
requirements in the law related to the appointment of a government
commission.

Obama's fourth signing statement, on a bill creating a "Financial
Crisis Inquiry Commission" threw out a requirement that the Emperor
provide that commission with information.

Obama's fifth signing statement was applied to a bill that created a
commission and included on it six members of congress. The signing
statement declared that those six commission members ...

"will be able to participate only in ceremonial or
advisory functions of [such a] Commission, and not in matters involving
the administration of the act."

Is it time to stop endlessly being "shocked" by these yet? Obama,
like Bush, argues in his signing statements that the sections of law he
intends to violate are unconstitutional. The problem is not that either
one of these presidents is necessarily always wrong or that such
questions can ever be decided to everyone's satisfaction. The problem
is that the Constitution requires the president to veto a bill or sign
and faithfully execute it. The time to argue against the
constitutionality of a provision is before a bill is passed or upon
vetoing it. Such an argument can even be made upon signing a bill. It
just can't be accompanied by a declaration of the power to violate the
law.

 1  |  2