home

Obama To Overturn Bush Laws and Orders He Finds Unconstitutional

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:32 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Suburban Guerilla and Reuters:

During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama.

He'll overturn laws? What about the separation of powers? How can a President overturn a law passed by Congress?

Presidents issue exective orders. It's Congress that passes and repeals laws. Our courts decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

[More...]

From a reader e-mail:

Doesn't this sound exactly like Bush signing statements saying that Bush will not respect parts of the law because they were in his interpretation unconstitutional?

Is Obama saying his Administration will bring a lot of cases before the Courts -- or that he as President will not respect laws?

Doesn't the timeline -- the first 100 days--seem as if Obama means he himself will "overturn" laws passed while Bush was in office?

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he misspoke. What do you think?

< WaPo Reporter: No McCain -Clinton Polling Because Nobody Cares | Late Night: Getting Ready for Florida >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama To Overturn Bush Laws and Orders He Finds Unconstitutional | 153 comments (153 topical)
    I think he covered this topic in (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:40:24 PM EST
    one of his articles for the Harvard Law Review.

    No one (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by LoisInCo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:47 AM EST
    wrote more for the HLR than Barack Obama!

    Parent
    No one's work was of higher quality (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:16:10 AM EST
    and THAT is a fact.

    Parent
    In my day (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:22:29 AM EST
    when we had to vote on the next editor of the law review, the #1 indispensable criteria was that they had to publish.  Ideally, we'd want someone whose student note was already finished, because we couldn't take the chance that they might slack off and not get it done.  It would have been seen as a major embarrassment for the institution if the EIC didn't publish.

    We weren't Harvard, but it was a top-5 school.  I was pretty surprised to find out that Obama never published, but I guess it must have been less important in his day, or something.

    Parent

    hardly. It was a big deal---they changed (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:24:37 AM EST
    the rules after he left to require that the EIC actually publish. That's very embarrassing---should go without saying.
    Also by other measure, the HLR was of lesser quality during his term.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:56 AM EST
    I was a Note Editor and I never published a note of my own, so I have no room to talk!  It's nice to know I can still be President though.

    Parent
    qwatz (none / 0) (#149)
    by 2liberal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:37:11 AM EST
    do you have a link for this? according to wiki, publishing was not part of being chosen one of the editors. there is no mention of how the president was chosen.

    Using a competitive process that takes into account first-year grades, an editing exercise, and a written commentary on a court decision, The Harvard Law Review selects between 41 and 43 editors annually from the second-year Law School class, which numbers 560.

    Two editors from each of first-year class's seven sections (fourteen in all) are selected half by their first year grades and half by their scores on the writing competition. Another twenty are selected solely on their scores on the writing competition. The other seven to nine are selected by a discretionary committee, either to fulfill the review's race-based affirmative action program, to select students who just missed the cut by either of the other two processes, or by some other criteria as the committee sees fit.



    Parent
    That's different (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:44:53 AM EST
    What you're describing is the process of how people get selected to join the Law Review in the first place.

    Once they're on law review, everyone is expected to publish a student note - in the end, some do and some don't.

    The selection of a President, and all the other offices, occurs after everyone has already spent a year working on Law Review.  At that point, you have additional data regarding who appears likely to publish and who doesn't.  But of course there's no publication requirement to get on Law Review in the first place, because that gets everything out of sequence.

    Parent

    HLR (none / 0) (#189)
    by gaf on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/02/12/how-good-was-obama-at-running-the-harvard-law-review/

    Parent
    President, not Editor (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:31:53 AM EST
    It is my understanding the Barack Obama was "President" of the Harvard Law Review. I think it was an administrative post.  

    Although I don't know if Harvard's law review has its own rules, most law reviews don't select anyone to serve as an editor unless he/she has written something published by the review.  There are many levels of editors -- including Managing, Note editor, Articles Editor, etc.


    Parent

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:24 AM EST
    I had always assumed that "President" was just a pretentious equivalent to "Editor-in-Chief."

    If they had an EIC and then a separate job called "President" I have no clue what that job description might entail.

    Parent

    Google Search (none / 0) (#143)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:18:01 AM EST
    Might turn up some of the quotes from Obama's class mates and the conservative group on the Law Review that chose Obama as President over another candidate essentially because they thought they could work around Obama more easily.  Editor's usually have responsibilities for editing articles and "notes" that will appear in each issue.  

    Parent
    of course, (none / 0) (#116)
    by cpinva on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:43:28 AM EST
    No one's work was of higher quality

    no one's was lower either.

    sorry, low-hanging fruit! :)

    Parent

    That slacker Laurence Tribe (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:26 AM EST
    also had a low opinion of him.

    "I can't pretend that I had any idea then that he would be a serious presidential candidate -- that would have been a crazy thing for anyone to project at that stage of a career -- but he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades," said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard for whom Obama served as a research assistant.


    Parent

    you know... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:46 AM EST
    the same thing was said about George W Bush by his classmates at Yale.

    The parallels with Bush 43 and Obama are too unnerving for me.

    Parent

    Really? I don't recall that. (none / 0) (#75)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:42:17 AM EST
    In fact, I was in NE in 2001-2003, and a woman I met said she knew Bush's Yale tutor, who said he was "dumb as a box of rocks".

    Parent
    with regard (none / 0) (#82)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:45 AM EST
    to him seriously running for the presidency.

    Parent
    Oh ok. I just love repeating that story. (none / 0) (#84)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:37 AM EST
    It's true, insofar as my reporting goes.

    Parent
    I recall (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:59:36 AM EST
    a quote from some guy who was on a board of directors with Bush, who said something like "if you made a list of a thousand people who might become President someday, you would not have put his name on it."  I wish I could find that quote.

    Parent
    It's my understanding (none / 0) (#106)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:13:39 AM EST
    that he NEVER wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review and that after his term was complete a new rule was put in place forbidding the selection any future Law Review president who had never made a contribution.

    Parent
    Yes, that's what I read as well. (none / 0) (#107)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:53 AM EST


    Parent
    I thought he meant... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:44:02 PM EST
    ... that he was planning on appointing himself to five of the nine positions on the Supreme Court.

    Don't you mean (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:01:45 AM EST
    5 of 16 supreme court positions?

    Parent
    He's trying to mimic Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:44:39 PM EST
    who said something(I'm not a lawyer) about reviewing Bush's signing statements and getting rid of them(I don't know the process).  So, well, Obama's about as good as I am at mimicing Hill's plans.

    that was it (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:46:21 PM EST
    I heard her say that would be the first thing she does.  Not what he said.  

    Parent
    More seriously... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:46:06 PM EST
    ... I think he misspoke--he'll overturn executive orders, but not laws. Though I have no idea how a lawyer makes that kind of mistake. Or how anybody can think that 10,000 people died in a tornado. Or anyone with a passing knowledge of history can think that Americans liberated Auschwitz.

    Can you get you money back (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:02:04 AM EST
    from U of Chicago?

    Parent
    technically (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by dpw on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:30 AM EST
    Executive orders are law, as are judicial orders. So, he didn't misspeak. One could argue that unconstitutional orders are not law on the grounds that they lack legitimacy, but most people don't use the term "law" that restrictively.

    Parent
    Huh (none / 0) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:23:06 AM EST
    Where?

    Parent
    I'm confused (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by dpw on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:33:45 AM EST
    I have no idea what you're asking, but I think it's rather clear that "the law" includes far more than prescriptions/proscriptions created by the legislature. I assume that you agree that court orders and opinions constitute law. Likewise, many executive orders and decisions are law, so long as they are supported by the appropriate authority.

    Parent
    I agree with dpw (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:35:59 AM EST
    The above post by Jeralyn suggests a way of seeing Obama's statement in the the worst possible light even though there is a perfectly reasonable way of reading it on its face. I would think that what Obama said is actually something that, in the light of the Bush administration's actions, Jeralyn would welcome - that Bush's executive orders are reviewed with regard to their constitutionality by the next attorney general.

    "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.

    The mention of "laws" in the second part of the sentence is consistent with the use of "laws" as dpw describes it, and to be read in the context of the first part, i.e. in reference to reviewing Bush's executive orders - not laws passed by Congress, which would amount to unnecessarily inserting a complete non sequitur.

    Parent

    Then why (none / 0) (#134)
    by Matt v on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:45:12 AM EST
    did he, himself, distinguish between the two?

    Parent
    W.O.R.M. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by vicsan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:11 AM EST
    What Obama Really Meant. Pretty sad he has his own acronym because he seems to have a "problem" with misspeaking. Pathetic.

    Parent
    I agree.. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by knowshon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:02:43 AM EST
    ...but how about him saying there there are 57 states, painful confusion between Hezbollah and Hamas, McCain running for W's 4th term, his grandmother "is typical of white people", and his hearts to questionable, racist characters.

    Parent
    Or stretch (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:22:10 AM EST
    the flag to accomodate 57 stars.

    Parent
    Can you tell me what you're referring (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:02:53 AM EST
    to?

    Parent
    If you were one of his students (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:06:50 AM EST


    Parent
    What was it Romney (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:49:46 PM EST
    said... something about calling people up... I can't remember, but this reminds me of that.  

    McCain, on the other hand, said he would never use signing statements.  Why couldn't Obama have said something nice and simple like that.

    What is Obama's background again.......

    Misspoke?  This tells me that he is well aware of the shift in the balance of power and he has no intention of giving it up (and that he has delusions of grandeur).

    Problem isn't signing statements per se... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:53:30 PM EST
    ...it is the abuse of them.  

    Parent
    Why haven't either (none / 0) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:04:31 AM EST
    of the Dems taken a position on them?  It's been an issue for me for a long time.  I used to like to listen to Toobin on this subject before he had to become a political pundit to get air time on CNN.  Also, abuse is subjective.  

    Parent
    They have (4.50 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:06:55 AM EST
    Here is a video from one of the debates.

    Parent
    Want Supreme Court (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:19 AM EST
    action on signing statements?  I'd prefer not to let the issue get there for now.  I'd take the position that signing statements are unconstitutional attempts to legislate by the executive and have no force of law.  Problem is now the Fed'l Government's departments are treating them as law -- or so I understand.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:45:10 AM EST
    I don't think they can be literally unconstitutional, because on one level they're simply the President giving instructions to his employees.  Enforcing a statute always requires some degree of interpretation; you can't really declare that the President is not entitled to interpret statutes or to tell his underlings how he interprets them.

    I think the video reflects that the prevalent view of signing statements is a little more nuanced than "they're always bad."  They've been around for an awfully long time, after all.

    Here is an example of a signing statement by Bill Clinton that I have no problem with.  The difference between this and the typical Bush signing statement is that Clinton provides guidance as to exactly what part of the statute he has a constitutional problem with and what his concerns are, which means Congress can fix it or take other appropriate action.

    Bush's signing statements are typically legalese like "I decline to enforce the statute to the extent it is inconsistent with the Constitution's grant of power to the unitary executive, blah blah blah," which is basically a way of saying that he may ignore portions of the law but he's not going to give you any idea which portions they may be.

    Parent

    Saying "this is my problem" and (none / 0) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:11:13 AM EST
    "I interpret the law to mean X" - when X means something entirely different from the law passed are two different things.  "This is my opinion" of the law is not an attempt to usurp the legislative authority of Congress, while signing statements that rewrite the letter and spirit of Congressional legislation should be treated as merely opinion.

    Parent
    Trends (none / 0) (#195)
    by atlanta lawyer on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    The trends in history of signing statements seem to move from more interpretation in the Reagan and Bush I to B.Clinton declining to enforce some laws, to Bush II declining to follow laws. The above case is illistrative.  Clinton, who had make priorities about which cases to prosecute and how zealously, decided that those laws shouldn't be enforced b/c of 1st amend problems. His opinion (despite the opinion of Congress and the Judiciary)was that the laws curtailed the freedom of Americans too much, so he wouldn't enforce them, while Bush's objections to the law have largely been that they encroach on his power too much.  It seemed the GENERAL trend was for Clinton -to the extent he went beyond interpreting- used them to give power and freedom back to U.S. Citizens while Bush has used them to gain an upper leg in a battle over power with Congress. That is the fundamental difference.

    Parent
    Some Conservative Constituton Lawyers (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:02 AM EST
    like Jonathan Turley and Bruce Fein have said that these signing statements are unconstitutional. I used to watch "Countdown" only because Turley was a guest. And Bruce Fein was just blew me away on "Bill Moyers' Journal" when he said that both Bush and Cheney should be impeached simultaneously.

    Parent
    Probably because Obama (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:56:46 PM EST
    might want to back up and support using signing statements tomorrow.  That is his MO.

    Parent
    waldenpond (none / 0) (#193)
    by tek on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    This has been my theory all along.  Only I don't think it's just Obama who has no intention of giving up all the executive power that's on the table right now, it's also his key supporters (who refused to impeach the most criminal president in history).  IMO all these people have dreams of grandeur, and while they may be liberals, as we have seen with Dubya, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This very thing is what makes the questionable primary season so worrisome.  Why do the D. C. Dems work so hard to promote Obama--an inexperienced unqualified man--and slash ferociously at Clinton?  Perhaps the D. C. Dems and some other liberal demographics don't want a strong Executive to have to share power with?  Just reeks, as we used to say in the '60s.

    Parent
    I gather he didn't have a script (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by themomcat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:55:11 PM EST
    when he said that? Just what this country needs another president that is forever putting his foot in his mouth and chomping on it.

    Read more closely... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:55:41 PM EST
    "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions..."

     Hardly controversial.

    He mispoke (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:58:57 PM EST
    have a tiny sense of humor about you.  :-)

    overturn those laws   not gonna do that one

    Parent

    Oh, dear Jesus... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Addison on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:47 AM EST
    ...have those executive orders not been laws? Have then not guided official conduct in our country the same as laws? What are you talking about. The problem is that Bush has conflated his orders with laws, not that Obama wants to realign them with the Constitution.  

    Parent
    Yeah, but the important thing... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:00:53 AM EST
    ..is that he is talking about executive orders.  I am not busy parsing Senator Clinton on this subject.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    You don't think he misspoke?  Your clarification makes no sense to me.

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:06:11 AM EST
    ...executive decisions do have the force of "law" behind them.  Or so President Clinton told us.  

     Unless we are going to pretend, as a Bush appointment did, that President Clinton's order barring sexual orientation discrimination in the executive branch did not have the force of law behind it.

     I happen to agree that there are plenty of questionable executive orders, but their legal status is unclear.

    Parent

    executive orders aren't overturned.... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:08:39 AM EST
    either.

    they are rescinded.  Or superceded.  But a president doesn't overturn anything.

    the issie isn't whether he misspoke - of course he misspoke.  The question is why he misspoke.

    Wasn't eight years of Bush enough?  

    Parent

    Fair to say (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:28 AM EST
    I think that both the Dem candidates are tired.  I am a Hillary supporter, but I think we should cut Obama some slack here.  I think many of us just have our noses out of joint because of the way the Obama campaign tried to turn Hillary  into one who has homicidal motives based on her own poor choice of words.

    Parent
    See I said the same thing about Senator Clinton... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:51 AM EST
    ...on dailykos and was repeatedly informed that she was, in essence, evil.  Way too partisan on both sides.

     I migrated there because I was tired of being personally attacked here.  

    Parent

    I would add (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by brad12345 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:48:50 AM EST
    that a reasonable standard is to ask yourself how you would react if the candidate you supported made that statement.  I support Obama, but I really can't imagine getting upset or thinking less of HRC if she said "I would overturn those executive orders" when she meant revoke or rescind.   It's asinine to apply the standards of specific written, legal english to every comment ever made in conversation.

    My guess is that if HRC said she would overturn the unconstitutional executive orders from the Bush years, people on this site would cheer.  And well it should--the bush years have been terribly corrupt.

    What I don't understand is how slightly imprecise use of the English language in conversation--in support of a goal that I would expect progressives to line up behind--can warrant the outrage that we see among these commenters.

    Parent

    Tight race... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:59:36 AM EST
    ...equals extremely divisive opinions, IMO.  Maybe too superficial, but I think that is what is happening.

    Parent
    Bush has taken (none / 0) (#205)
    by Daryl24 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    the executive signing order to places no one imagined. I think at last count the tally was just over 700. He misspoke but I understood what Obama was saying so I'll give him a pass. Glad to hear him mention it

    Parent
    New Orders Void Old Ones (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:52 AM EST
    I
    t has been an interesting several weeks for the presidency in many respects. This is a subject that I started thinking about in 1993 when, after President Clinton was elected, on his first day he issued a number of decisions that were widely characterized as executive orders in a memorandum that overturned some policies from the Bush administration and the Reagan administration. I did not know that a president could do that. I thought presidents had to go through congress fore everything, which sort of fits with the standard conceptions of the office that we have.

    [snip]

    In the waning days of his administration, Clinton issued dozens of executive orders and proclamations which, among other things, declared new national monuments, which take public lands off-limits to development.

    [snip]

    Bush, whose press secretary Ary Flysher had referred to Clinton as something of a busy beaver in his final days, promised a close review of these last minute orders. So, when Bush got into office, his first act on January 22nd was to issue a memorandum overturning what Clinton had done as his first acts as president. So, what happened is that Clinton overturned what had become known as the Mexico City Policy in which non-governmental organizations involved in family planning services, in order to receive U.S. foreign aid, had to fore-score all abortion-related services, whether or not they used U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Mexico City Policy imposed a ban that even if a group provided those services with their own funds, they would not be eligible for U.S. foreign aid. On January 22nd, 1993, Clinton reversed that policy. On January 22nd, 2001, Bush reversed Clinton, who had in turn reversed Reagan, who had in turn, reversed an earlier policy.




    Parent
    "Ary Flysher"?! What oh-so-erudite (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:09:24 AM EST
    spurce are you quoting, anyway?  What a hoot.

    Parent
    Ugh. The irony. Uh, "source" (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:51:14 AM EST
    and a reminder to self to turn on the desk light when typing in the middle of the night.

    Parent
    Source (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    Griffin Bell
    Former U.S. Attorney General
    With William Howell and Ken Mayer
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
    "The History of the Executive Order"

    Parent
    A President's "executive power" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:04:35 AM EST
    (Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) give executive orders the force of law, which is why the EOs refer to specific acts of Congress.

    I just read Article 1 in its entirety.... (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    again, an it does not give Executive Orders the force of law.  

    The lawmaking power is reserved to Congress.  That's pretty much the whole point of the separation of powers.

    Congress can assign power to the executive branch to promulgate regulations necessary to implement the laws it passes and those regulations can have the force of law, but the President can't just issue an order and have it be treated as "law" absent specific congressional authorization to do so.  

    Did you study under professor Obama or something? ;-)

    Parent

    Oops, I misspoke. Thanks for the correction. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:41:47 AM EST
    The President's "executive power" (Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) give executive orders the force of law, when the orders refer to specific acts of Congress that empower them.

    Parent
    I don't mean to be a stickler... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Arjun on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    but Article II, Section I of the constitution simply establishes the executive, sets up electors, necessary requirements for the office, salary, oath of office etc.

    Are you referring to Article II, Section 3? That sets up presidential responsibilities. But the only thing mentioned here is the responsibility to "take care that all laws be faithfully executed".

    The powers of the president are so ambiguous in the specific text of the constitution, so the force of law granted to executive orders stems from the necessary and proper clause of Article I section 8, which grants congress 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."

    Since congress is empowerd to grant the executive the ability to carry out orders with the force of the law, I think Obama's statement was reasonable. As a supporter of HRC, I would rather not bring myself down to the semantic games playing the Obama supporters love to engage in. I have bigger concerns than Obama's lexical proficiency.

    Parent
    It's more complicated than that (none / 0) (#87)
    by dpw on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:53:02 AM EST
    Well, the separation of powers isn't really so crystal clear. The question often relates to whether the executive (or judicial) branch is really "making" law or, alternatively, just interpreting the law or delivering some refined application of the law. Federal courts often issues orders that depend upon judge-created federal common law. Moreover, many constitutional holdings can drastically change the legal landscape even though the courts only claims to be interpreting the constitution.

    Similarly, the executive branch often makes law. The authority to do so generally derives from congressional delegation of this authority (the constitutionality of which is controversial), but  additionally the duties of the executive often require the interpretation of broadly defined authority. Moreover, executive discretion often requires executive officers to make policy-like decisions.

    In short, this stuff can be incredibly complicated, and just because the executive and judicial branches don't have explicit authority to  "make law," they do have the obligation to make decisions about the law. These decisions, also, typically have the "force of law," even if they tend to change the legal landscape in material ways. To be sure, you can be thrown in jail for refusal to comply with a court order (remember Schiavo?).

    Parent

    Executive Orders (none / 0) (#141)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:14:18 AM EST
    it seems to me might lawfully cover matters over which the President as Chief Executive has Constitutional Authority, i.e., conduct of a lawful law, execution of authority reserved in Congressional legislation to the president to carry out the law in question, etc.

    Parent
    "law" vs :"authority" (none / 0) (#174)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:35:24 AM EST
    when we are talking about the "force of law", we are talking about the nature of a "law", which is separate and distinct from "executive authority".  

    Thus, statutes have 'the force of law', as do regulations passed pursuant to statute, and judicial determinations regarding the meaning and implementation of laws and regulations.

    The whole framework of the constitution exists to deny the executive the ability to "make law" and tossing around "force of law" when discussing executive authority bugs me ;-)

    Parent

    How will he (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by LoisInCo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:12:31 AM EST
    judge the constitutionality? Will he take the same martinet mindset he used to knock off valid opponents against him? If so, then he will probably keep most of them.

    You know what.. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:32:20 AM EST
    ...stop with the personal attacks.  Just stop.

     High info voter indeed. No need to attack me.

    Agreed Alex (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:10:41 AM EST
    I deleted that comment

    Parent
    Eh... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Addison on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:17 AM EST
    (a) He was clearly talking about the executive orders that have been in abrogation of the legislative process. Which we've all been against, I think.

    (b) If he had said he would NOT overturn such decisions there would've been a post on that, too, decrying him as just another Bush-esque executive. Which is always a good rule of thumb: if the opposite course had be undertaken, would the detractors have something negative to say as well? If so, maybe the decision isn't as simple as it's made out to be.

    Severl Personal attacks on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:23 AM EST
    have been deleted. This is a thread about a specific statement he made.

    This is about an appropriate review of (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by AdrianLesher on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:23:45 AM EST
    executive orders.

    "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.

    It seems pretty clear that since Obama is talking about reviewing executive orders, he is only talking about terminating Bush's abusive and extra-constitutional executive acts. I would think that Talkleft would be cheering this rather than engaging in baseless comparisons with Bush's abuses.

    I would think so as well... (none / 0) (#154)
    by rhbrandon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:38:34 AM EST
    Context is important here. Seeking out statements by one's opponent, parsing and mangling them allegedly into meaning something they don't is the kind of political style we're all had to put up with for the last two presidental terms, if not the last four. We're seeing the same kind of thing from the WH on Scotty's confessional.

    It's what ultimately burned me out on the Clinton campaign.

    Parent

    Nice work work, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:02:34 AM EST
    Given the option between taking the clear meaning of what he said, that he would rescind those executive orders that he felt violated the Constitution, and inferring a meaning that assumes he is a complete idiot that knows nothing about the law, you chose the latter.  

    Pretty impressive that you could find a negative interpretation to a comment that you would absolutely be effusive over had Hillary said it.

    Amusing (none / 0) (#178)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    Giving a choice between actually reading Jeralyn's post, where she says "I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt," and accusing her of bad faith, you chose the latter.

    Again.

    Parent

    And everyone starts sharpening their knives again. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Rictor Rockets on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:47:03 AM EST
    Geeze,

    He was obviously talking about the "laws" that Bush wrote for himself through EO's (stroke of the pen, law of the land, as they say) which were a patent abuse of the system.

    God, I bet if Hillary had said these exact same words, you'd be throwing rosepetals and shouting hosanna, not nitpicking.

    You folks think MCCAIN is going to review all the spurious EO's and awful drek that Bush has forced upon us in the last eight years?

    In keeping with my Obama experience (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:52:25 AM EST
    thusfar.  The largest elements of his stated ambitions have a dreamlike quality while he seems to be completely out of touch with what it would in reality take to accomplish.  

    She's a lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:57:01 AM EST
    Who understands legal process and wonders why another lawyer who is running for President doesn't seem to understand the processes.  That's sort of scary.

    I'm no lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:14:01 AM EST
    but he said overturn laws.

    Parent
    You don't overturn executive orders (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    you rescind them (words matter) -- only a non-lawyer or an idiot lawyer would use the word "overturn" vis-a-vis executive orders. The question here is not what kind of democratic is Jeralyn, the question what kind of lawyer is Obama?

    Parent
    Enough (4.00 / 2) (#181)
    by geordie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    I came to this site originally to read BTD again, who I missed at DKos.  I left Dkos because of the unreasoning, sexist hatred of Hillary Clinton there - I've never been an Obama supporter, and I voted Edwards in the Florida primary.  So I was predisposed to read reasonable criticism of Obama and reasonable support for Clinton here.  

    But this subject and the really racist comments here have just gone over the line for me - I'm a lawyer, I teach, and I'm not offended by Obama's rather expansive statement about executive orders in this instance.  He's a POLITICIAN!  He's not in court, he's not writing a brief, he's making one of thousands of political speeches this year.

    To suggest that he's not smart, that he somehow got into Harvard "for other reasons", wink, wink, nudge, nudge, is simply odious.  I have been thinking for a while about changing my voter registration to Independent, to disassociate myself from the feckless and incompetent Florida Democratic party leadership.  But this kind of thread makes me want to disassociate myself from the people posting this kind of inane and frankly Red State-sounding attacks on Obama, so long as they call themselves Democrats.   You may be deleting "personal attacks on Obama", Jeralyn, but that's closing the barn door after the horse has bolted - you invited it and you got it.  

    You really need to read carefully... (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:16:52 AM EST
    ...because to me he has a firm grasp on constitutioal law.

     He was teaching it at a highly ranked rated law school.  

     He graduated from a top law school.

     He passed the bar after graduating from a top law school.

     This is one issue where he doesn't need to convince anyone, IMO.
     

    You are wrong (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:42 AM EST
    He needs to convince me. Graduating from a top law school, passing the bar and teaching does not qualify anyone to be president, especially, one who can't string a coherent sentence together without a script. IMO.

    Parent
    Bush 43 graduated from Yale (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:18 AM EST
    So what's your point?

    Parent
    Pretty Clearly (4.00 / 2) (#98)
    by brad12345 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:18 AM EST
    The point is that, regardless of any other criticism you might want to make, Obama understands constitutional law.  Generally, top 10 law schools don't become top 10 law schools by hiring people who don't understand the law.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:46:56 AM EST
    so why does Obama need to google decriminalization?  Did they not teach him along the way that there are 50 states as opposed to 58?

    Top 10 law schools, universities and the like are not impressive to me.  I work with a Stanford graduate that asks me to proof her communiques because of her poor syntax.

    The owner of my company graduated from Dartmouth.  Guess who has to show him how to compute gross profit on our financials?

    Li'l ol' university-public school state system-graduate me that's who. If people like Obama and Bush are products of Ivy League educations, I will gladly pick my public education university every day of the week.

    Parent

    Uh (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by brad12345 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:01:43 AM EST
    Bush got in on legacy connections and on being the grandson of a senator and so on.  Nor did Bush ever teach there.

    Get a grip.  Academic jobs, even low level academic jobs, are extremely competitive.  You don't get them unless you know what you're doing.  You don't teach at a place like the University of Chicago unless you've impressed some of the smartest people in your field. ..

    I work with a Stanford graduate that asks me to proof her communiques because of her poor syntax.

    Of course, you technically mean "who asks me"--what you've written is grammatically incorrect.  By your logic, I could argue that you don't know the English language, but I'd rather assume that you do and that you made a small error while typing quickly.  I'd also like to assume that Obama used some slightly imprecise language while talking to a reporter and don't want to see that imprecision as a reason to declare him as dumb as Bush.  I don't think that's unreasonable.

    Parent

    Your statement (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by tek on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    is not quite correct.  Every university I've been connected to has lots of faculty who are spouses and other inside appointments that never went through an interview process.  Happens all the time.  As for adjuncts in law schools, these people are frequently lawyers from the community who may or may not have college level teaching credentials.

    Parent
    legacy (3.66 / 3) (#162)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:21:24 AM EST
    Bush got in on legacy connections and on being the grandson of a senator and so on.  Nor did Bush ever teach there.

    legacy admissions aren't the only way that less qualified students get into the Ivy League....

    Parent

    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by brad12345 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST
    The racist explanation.  Why didn't I think of that?

    Parent
    Big woo (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:02:52 AM EST
    I graduated from a top ten law school too and I say he's wrong.

    I promise you that not all my graduated classmates understood constitutional law such that it would be impossible for them to make a mistake about it.

    Again, it's running on biography vs reality.  Even assuming Obama does understand con law (for the sake of argument I'll even grant that he does), that says nothing about whether he is accurately characterizing the law in his public statements.

    Based on this, why don't we just decide all the legal cases based on which side's lawyer went to a top 10 school?

    Parent

    Seems like a reasonable statement (3.00 / 8) (#45)
    by SFGeek on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:13 AM EST
    This site has been full of legitimate complaints about El Presidente Bush's executive orders and signing statements, and that's obviously what Obama was talking about.  As a lawyer, the OP very well understands that administrative law and executive orders are different than legislative actions, and it quiet reasonable for Obama to use the term "law" in front of a lay audience.

    When will TalkLeft return to progressive politics and justice issues and stop being the "one stop shop for super-literal parsing of Democratic candidates"?

    I dunno (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:25 AM EST
    Frankly, I'm satisfied for it to be the one blog that doesn't think Hillary wants Obama dead.

    Parent
    we'll return to that (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:18:55 AM EST
    once we have a nominee which is either when one candidate withdraws from the race or delegates actually vote at the convention.

    We are covering both now but we write so many posts a day you have to scroll for the law posts.

    Parent

    I have to agree... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Siguy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:23:40 AM EST
    I think this is a really shoddy topic today.

    From my perspective (and I think the perspective of almost anyone else who read this statement), he was saying he'd make executive orders revoking Bush's executive orders that he feels are unconstitutional.

    That's completely legal and completely sensible and something I desperately want to see happen. Every president does this, usually the first week in office.

    To claim that Obama is talking about changing congressional law with the stroke of a pen seems to me to be a grossly unfair and inappropriate reading of his statement.

    Parent

    yes and no.... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:59:04 AM EST
    this is a political campaign in which someone is claiming to be qualified for President based on a very thin resume that includes an exaggerated claim of being a law professor --

    If Lawrence Tribe had said the same thing, I'd be confident that he knew what he was talking about, and this was just a slip of the tongue.

    And from what we've seen of Obama, there is good reason to think that he would take the same approach to the Constitution that Bush does -- that it matters only when its convenient.

    Parent

    unfortunately, (none / 0) (#191)
    by tek on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    before the primaries began, I read articles in which Obama stated that he thinks Bush's Faith Based Initiative is a good program that should be expanded.  Hmmm, wonder what churches would benefit under an Obama administration.

    Parent
    Presidents don't overturn laws... (none / 0) (#185)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:15:14 AM EST
    Congress revises them and judges can rule on their constitutionality.

    Presidents can rescind executive orders but cannot overturn a law.

    Parent

    Force of Law (3.00 / 2) (#135)
    by OneOfMany on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:45:22 AM EST
    Executive orders, do have the force of law, subject only to the Constitution foremost, treaties adopted by the Senate next, followed lastly by laws adopted by Congress and signed or accepted into law by the presidency.  So those who seek to tar and feather Obama as stupid on this latest point, only show a lack of intellectual honesty and curiosity about the truth and irrational animus based on distorted spin, fear, and dissapointment.  I feel sad for my fellow Democrats.  

    Force of law... (none / 0) (#187)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:21:01 AM EST
    is not the same thing as actually being a law.

    Presidents can't just overturn whatever laws they don't think are appropriate.

    Bush can't...that's part of what the whole wiretapping thing was about. Should he become president, Obama won't be able to either.

    He can rescind some of Bush's executive orders...but they aren't laws passed by Congress.

    Parent

    qwatz (none / 0) (#4)
    by 2liberal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:45:54 PM EST
    i assume he was referring to signing statements. Obama does not need to be edumacated about the separation of powers.

    This has come up before (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:46:20 PM EST
    March 2008:

    Barack Obama told a cheering crowd at a town hall meeting in Casper today that he would restore respect for law in the White House by reviewing every executive order issued by President George W. Bush and discarding any deemed unconstitutional. Obama's comments came in response to a question from a man in the audience who said he worried that presidents sometimes consider themselves above the law.

    I don't know why he said "laws" in this latest quote, but I think Jeralyn is appropriately giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    Obama could overturn any executive order (none / 0) (#123)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:00:36 AM EST
    Presidents can do quite a bit with executive orders. JFK created the Peace Corps with an executive order. And an executive order does not have to be determined unconstitutional for another president to rescind it. I would bet the next president will find executive orders that are constitutional but nonetheless appalling. And, hopefully, that president will rescind them.

    Parent
    Bad Executive Orders (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:01:00 AM EST
    Are laws sidestepping congress, therefore unconstitutional. My guess is that BushCo had come up with at few of those.
    Critics[who?] have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    Wikipedia

    Like This One (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:04:22 AM EST
    Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency

    Parent
    Here (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:20:12 AM EST
    link

    It's all about the (none / 0) (#57)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:26:42 AM EST
    larger truths.  ;-)

    Cite... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:27:39 AM EST
    ..the course that he taught, please.

     Or do you mean he taught the Equal Protection portion of con law?

    The course he lectured in (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by miriam on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:58 AM EST
    according to the registrar of the Univ. of Chicago, was entitled "Race and The Law."  You figure it out.

    Parent
    Why is a link... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:43 AM EST
    ...such a herculean task? Just provide it.

     I await it.

     Show me that he taught "Race and the Law" in lieu of constitutional law.  That is all I am asking.

     Hardly an unreasonable demand.

    Parent

    Try google. There are multiple (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:01 AM EST
    references to him teaching a course on "race and the law" at UC.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:56:51 AM EST
    Google is not that hard!

    I had Obama as a prof when I was at the University of Chicago for a seminar on race and the law. His title of Senior Lecturer is one that only a few people hold-- the others are Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook and Diane Wood -- all former Chicago full time faculty members now on the 7th Circuit.

    Obama was an amazing professor and in many ways, I wish I could be as effective in the classroom as he was. He engaged students in the material and showed great skill at eliciting good student comments and managing class discussion. Obama also integrated in social science empirical literature into our discussions to better inform some of the normative discussions that we had. I thought he managed intellectual diversity very well, as we had a spectrum of students from libertarians and conservatives on one hand to radicals on the other.

    This quote does not, of course, say that "Race and the Law" was the only class that Obama ever taught.  I believe Adam B from Daily Kos said he took a course in election law from Obama.

    Parent

    Yes, Obama taught several courses, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:59:15 AM EST
    including Con. Law.

    Parent
    He taught con law and other courses (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:18:54 AM EST
    according to wsj.com's law blog; some comments from Adam B. and other former students there.  Obama taught Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process; Current Issues in Racism & the Law; and Voting Rights & the Democratic Process.

    Parent
    Btw, that Obama taaught a Voting Rights (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:22:23 AM EST
    course, in the context of MI and FL and his stand on the DNC committee's decision, just sorta makes me shudder.  How could anyone who even took a voting rights law course, much less taught it, take his stand on this issue?  (Or should I say stands on this issue, plural?  What did Obama really mean?)

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:48:58 AM EST
    In Chapter 8 of the voting rights textbook, it clearly explains that if one of the candidates once told a caller on a radio show that the election won't count for anything, then all other principles are to be ignored.

    More people seem to be familiar with this chapter than I would have thought, actually.

    Parent

    Okay... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:01:30 AM EST
    ...so he didn't teach con law?

     I still don't understand the main point.  It appears to be that he taught something equivalent to critical race theory and did NOT teach con law, but none of the links substantiate that.

     

    Parent

    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:06:58 AM EST
    I always thought he taught con law.  Thinking about it, it sorta makes sense that you'd have your distinguished lecturers leading seminars on issues they know something about, rather than teaching some vanilla first-year course like con law, but who knows.

    My con law prof worked at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he was a real character.  I remember him mocking the president of the Federalist Society one time.  "Aww, poor little Ninth and Tenth Amendments, getting smaller and smaller!"  I guess you had to be there.

    Parent

    "Libertarians and conservatives (none / 0) (#155)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:45:22 AM EST
    on one hand to radicals on the other" is a revealing turn of phrase from this writer. Radicals being considered extreme liberals, you would have thought he would have used simply "liberal", After all, he used "conservative" instead of "reactionary".

    I think I can discern which side of the ideological toast this chap butters.

    Parent

    I'd love to see (none / 0) (#81)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:21 AM EST
    the syllabus and reading list.

    Parent
    The Republicans will have lots of fun (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:35 AM EST
    making fun of Obama, the lecturer on US Constitution.  To spend the first 100 hours on something that he doesn't have to spend more than 2 hours on, because it's simply a review from the DOJ, leads me to believe Obama is more lightweight than I thought.  He has no clue as to what's important.  He really should have said that he would spend the first 100 hours learning the most important part of the job.  That's all he will have time for.

    Heh (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:53 AM EST
    Technically, the question was about the first 100 days, not the first 100 hours.

    Now, my interpretation was that he wouldn't literally be spend all 100 days reviewing executive orders, all day long, but we're certainly all entitled to our own interpretations.

    Parent

    Back to that talking point, huh? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Addison on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:53:33 AM EST


    He misspoke? (none / 0) (#102)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:30 AM EST
    He has almost as many verbal gaffes as Bush!  

    Seriously, how did this many get such high opinion of himself?  His hubris knows no bounds, for a rather unimpressive man.  

    That's a whale (none / 0) (#103)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:38 AM EST
    of a misspeak for someone who 'taught' constitutional law.

    The more that tumbles out of his mouth the more convinced I am that he would be questionable as a candidate for city council.

    A junior high school civics student knows better. That whole W.O.R.M. business is beginning to look a like massive cover-up for a rank fraud.

    Sure, whatever you say (none / 0) (#113)
    by dpw on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:26:07 AM EST
    It's only "misspeak" if you assume that Obama was referring about laws passed by the legislature, as opposed to just executive orders, which in most cases do constitute law despite what many here seem to believe.

    Whatever. I don't think that's even a good-faith interpretation of his remarks, and I don't know what kind of jurisprudence treats executive orders by the president as something less than law. If you don't think such orders do constitute law, then tell me what you think they are. Just presidential suggestions?

    Parent

    these gaffs make me worry (none / 0) (#121)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:56:16 AM EST
    Maybe he's just tired. But I'm really starting to worry. Sounds a bit too much like dubya for my taste.

    Apply Occam's Razor (none / 0) (#126)
    by daryl herbert on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:10:18 AM EST
    I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he misspoke. What do you think?

    I think that's correct.  After all, there's a new gaffe every 24 hours with this candidate.

    If the media wasn't in the tank for him, they'd be reporting the "Obama-ism of the day."

    i'm going to give him the benefit (none / 0) (#127)
    by cpinva on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:21:03 AM EST
    of the doubt as well, and assume it was just a misstatement on his part. i feel pretty certain that, as a harvard trained lawyer, he's well cognizant of the powers of the legislative and executive branches of our government, as stated in the constitution, with amendments, lawsuits, etc.

    it's probably one of those "geez, what the heck was i thinking?" moments that we all have, especially when tired and stressed.

    i hope. :)

    He is (none / 0) (#152)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:22:30 AM EST
    the all-knowing and all-powerful omnipotent Barack Obama (queue choir of angels, please).  He will do whatever the eff he wants to, Jeralyn.  ;)

    Your monikor says it all, (none / 0) (#159)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:01:29 AM EST
    OneOfMany says follower extroidinaire! Sen. Obama has manuevered, lied, mislead, disrespected, misinformed, I could go on. Hillary did not lose, as your candidate did not win. I am not an Obama supporter because he is not who he seems and is highly unqualified to be my president. This site is civil, intelligent, cordial and witty and I have learned much here and appreciate what it brings to the conversation.

    The problem that I always seem to have with (none / 0) (#163)
    by Anne on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:41:25 AM EST
    Obama is that he's so busy saying what people want to hear that he fails to make sure that what he's saying holds up.

    Take what he said:

    "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.

    While I understand the intent of what he said, he left the door wide open for legitimate criticsm.

    For one, in phrasing it as he did, all Obama has said here is that he's going to do the same thing Bush did, only in reverse: apply his own standards on constitutionality to legislation.  While he would have the same power as previous presidents, does he really want to flavor everything with this same kind of overblown ego-driven attitude?

    Two, he says he will bring in the attorney general as part of the review, but then he ditches the AG altogether and says it will be his own decision about what is constitutional.

    Anyway, how hard would it have been to say that he would task the Justice Department and the Offie of Legal Counsel to review all of the signing statments and executive orders and provide him with recommendations as to whether and which ones should be rescinded or superceded so as to best reflect Congress' original intent in the legislation passed and later signed into law.  It says "I want to fix this" without all the ego contained in the way he phrased his original remarks.  I think he needs to tread somewhat carefully, lest he be cast as someone who feels no differently about executive power than Bush did.

    Honestly, it wears me out thinking of years of this WORM-ing; it shouldn't be that hard for an allegedly smart guy to be able to communicate effectively.

    To me it sounds like he has misspoken. (none / 0) (#176)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:47:44 AM EST
    So, it does not sound like a big deal.

    The BIG DEAL to me is that the question he reponsed to was to define what would he do in the first 100 days of his presidency.

    Normally this type of questions are asked to see what the top priorities of a candidate are. Correct?  

    For a new president facing the enoumus problems we have in the country I would have liked to hear him focusing on a number of more pressing things such as developing a plan to end the war in Iraq ASAP, etc.

    I thought he was a constitutional law (none / 0) (#180)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    prof.

    Wouldn't he know better?

    a response to something no longer here (none / 0) (#182)
    by kempis on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:08:14 AM EST
    I typed the following, hit reply, and found that the other poster's post and my post that he responded to had disappeared. This may disappear, too, but I put some time and energy into it, so I'm posting it below. If it vanishes, OK. I just wanted to see if I could get this said because it goes to the core of why I've left the Democratic party.

    **********

     the Democrats need a large tent to win ( / ) (#0)
    by kempis

    Purifying the party of the Clinton Wing, which you and other Obama-supporters seem to associate with racism, is merely, to borrow a phrase that Obama likes to use "backward looking"--as in backward to the Mondale-Dukakis coalition.

       

    I also think the results of Oregon and Kentucky show the US still has a lot of unfinished business in terms of race relations (not a good reason by the way for me to switch support to the candidate that can deliver the white vote).

    You do realize that it is just as "logical" to assume that Oregonians are more sexist than Kentuckians? After all, 65% of Oregon's men voted for Obama but an identical 65% of Kentucky's men voted for Clinton. In PA, Clinton and Obama split the male vote, 50-50....So what's up with the sexist men in Oregon? Silly argument? I agree. It's absurd. And this is exactly the sort of argument you're employing about the "racists" in KY.

    The real division has much less to with race and more to do with class. And if the Democratic party still stood for the New Deal-type principles that informed the party I belonged to for 32 years, these kinds of negative stereotypes about working class whites wouldn't gain such traction. But this party no longer stands for the working class, not beyond cosmetics. I have no idea what this party stands for anymore.

    Obama's problem with working class whites is not his skin color. It's his associations with Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, and William Ayers. It's his lack of experience in national security matters. And it's obvious patronizing discomfort around working class whites.

    If Colin Powell were running against Hillary Clinton in Kentucky and West Virginia, he would have won in a landslide. So let's leave race out of it, OK? Unless you really do want to purge the party of white, especially Southern, working class voters based on foolish negative stereotypes. If so, good luck winning future elections.

    this is off topic and will be deleted again (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    read the comment rules please. Put it on an open thread.

    Parent
    I think his reference... (none / 0) (#184)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    ...to overturning "laws" is probably a reference to signing acts of Congress which remove those prerogatives he considers unconstitutional.
    As POTUS, he can not only revoke Executive orders, he can also revise agency rules and policy, so he's got pretty broad leeway to overturn a lot of the "Bush Doctrine".

    By the way, Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law.  There's no "affirmative action" in the grading system there, and it's been a top 3 law school since before they started making lists.  Obviously, the quality of his work there was pretty high--most lawyers and law students I know would be willing to sacrifice a particularly precious and tender body part to have a MCL JD from HLS. I'd note that neither Clinton attained MCL in law school, though Bill was a Rhodes Scholar, which is pretty impressive in and of itself.  

    The one thing there's really nothing to criticize Obama about is his academic record.  Didn't publish a student note in law review?  Horrors.

    Did University of Chicago know about this terrible, shameful blot on his record when he was working 11 years there as a part time lecturer in con law?  Was there a cover up?  Was Prof. Tribe brainwashed by Obama operatives?

    It should be noted ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    at Harvard Law School the highest honor is summa cum laude.  This is based on a grade point average.

    Magna cum laude is given to the top ten percent of students, excluding summa.

    So how MCLs are granted at HLS is not directly based on grade point averages.

    (These are the current standards, but I believe they were in place when Obama received his law degree in the nineties.)

    The standards were higher during the era the Clintons attended law school.  Maybe someone knows the exact standards at Yale during that time, and the Clintons grades, and could clarify this matter.

    Parent

    Well, at GWU... (none / 0) (#200)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    ...the current standards are similar to HLS for honors.  MCL corresponds to High Honors here, and for that you need to be in the top tenth of the graduating class, which this year had a cutoff GPA of about 3.7 .  For Highest Honors/SCL at GWU, it's roughly the top 3 percent of the graduating class, which this year had a cutoff GPA of 3.85.  For Honors, the top 40% of the class (which I hope I can accomplish when I graduate, 3 long years from now), the cutoff this year was about 3.44.  
    So I'd expect Obama's GPA to be somewhere in the 3.5 to 3.8 range in order to graduate MCL there.

    I noticed that Yale did away with class rankings(and GPA entirely, apparently) sometime after the 1960s, but it's not clear to me when the system was first implemented.  

    Parent

    Oh, right ... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    Yale Law School doesn't give grades.  And that system was implemented before the Clintons attended.

    So they couldn't have gotten SCLs or MCLs, because Yale didn't grant them.

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#190)
    by tek on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    Hillary was one of his mentors.  Talk about stabbing someone in the back!

    I keep saying, he's the new Dubya.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#194)
    by Regency on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:14:53 AM EST
    Didn't BO get admitted under a legacy clause because his father attended Harvard? That's what I read. So he doesn't have to be exceptional at all.

    Umm (none / 0) (#199)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:13:33 AM EST
    Except he also graduated Magna Cum Laude.  So yea, he was probably a pretty good student.  Last I checked they don't give those away to legacies.

    Parent
    Did he stop beating his wife? (none / 0) (#198)
    by 1980Ford on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:59:19 AM EST
    This is getting ridiculous. If Democrats disagree with torture, why do these elections go on for so long?

    Umm... (none / 0) (#203)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST

    Obama said: "review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution"

    The President can overturn executive orders. That is what Obama is saying.

    He is NOT saying he would overturn laws (or use unconstitutional signing statements like our illustrious current President).

    But I expect Obama to push Congress to overturn the most aggregious law passed under Bush - The Military Commissions Act - which allows the President to suspend ANYONE's Habeas Corpus right.

    It Still Is A Fine Blog (none / 0) (#204)
    by squeaky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    This is run of the mill campaigning, imo, and not to be taken soooooo seriously, unless, that is, you are in love with a candidate. Then it is war. Hope you can understand, it has taken me a while.

    Besides as history has told us, the current state of things will soon be forgotten because the blogosphere will snap back to where it was before all the cult nonsense.

    I seriously doubt that there will be many casualties, as there will be other far more important issues to focus on than holding grudges.

    comments now closed (none / 0) (#207)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:00:29 PM EST


    Obama To Overturn Bush Laws and Orders He Finds Unconstitutional | 153 comments (153 topical)