This is Why We Need A Major Investigation

Let me say this straight: I like Barack Obama. I campaigned for him. I voted for him. He singlehandedly brought a new sense of hope and activism to this country. And I adore Michelle and what she is doing to restore the mean of "First Lady," if I can even use the phrase.

But the excesses of the Bush administration unless examined and repudiated with investigation, perhaps prosecution, and legislation just hand the "ring" over to the next president. Even Frodo could not resist the power of the ring.

According to Charlie Savage, reporting for the New York Times, on March 11, while signing the Omnibus Spending bill, turning it into the law of the land, with all its 9,000 earmarks, President Obama used a signing statement. Now one might recall the use of those during the Bush administration. They were notorious.

"In the statement — directions to executive-branch officials about how to carry out the legislation — Mr. Obama instructed them to view most of the disputed provisions as merely advisory and nonbinding, saying they were unconstitutional intrusions on his own powers. Mr. Obama’s instructions followed by two days his order to government officials that they not rely on any of President George W. Bush’s provision-bypassing signing statements without first consulting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. In that order, Mr. Obama said he would continue the practice of issuing signing statements, though “with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.”

In addition to contesting the portion of the bill that would curtain the use of US troops in UN peacekeeping roles, Obama signled out a whistleblower provision, several that targeted negotiations with other countries, and three that dealt with agencies and their budget requests.

On March 9, 2009, Charlie Savage reported in the Times that Obama was limiting the use of signing statements and using them only after consulting with Attorney General Eric Holder.

According to Savage: "Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. The practice became more frequent with the Reagan administration, but it initially drew little attention. That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio."

Link here to the May 5, 2006 New York Times editorial condemning Bush's use of signing statements.