Wasn’t President Obama one of the chief negotiators of the budget for the remainder of FY 2011? He sure was quick to take credit for the deal that keeps the government up and running. So it’s curious that he’d turn around and attach a signing statement to the bill.
The Hill reported:
But Obama took the key step of issuing a signing statement, a declaration of constitutional interpretation by a president of legislation he or she might sign into law. It essentially notified lawmakers that he would not abide by the section of the law defunding the establishment of so-called “czars.”
Obama has employed a good number of these informal policy advisers who aren’t subject to Senate confirmation, drawing the ire of congressional Republicans and prompting them to include in their spending bill a provision barring the use of federal funds for czars.
“The president also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it,” Obama said in his signing statement. “Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
What a bunch of bunk. What constitutional responsibilities has he carried out? He ignores the constitution.
Read the whole thing, he also included a statement about Gitmo. Basically, he’s telling Congress to go to hell, just as he’s done throughout his entire presidency.
Hey, remember when Obama was against the use of signing statements? He said he would only use them in cases where Congress sent him bills with unconstitutional provisions. How is cutting off funding for a bunch of czars unconstitutional?
Update: Via Hot Air, here’s Dear Leader as a candidate promising not to use signing statements. He also promised to obey the constitution. You didn’t believe him, did you?
Update 2: Kudos to Jake Tapper for including Obama’s prior comments on signing statements in his report.