DENVER - Maybe it’s his background teaching constitutional law.
If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.
Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.
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
Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system.
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage
Photo credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking (Obama talks to students during a visit to a school in Thornton, CO)
Trackback
167 comments so far
Previous | 9 … | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | … 1 | Next
Geeez guys/gals!!! He is just saying that he will question and/or change G W Bush’s many “signing statements”.
- Posted by TorbinYou people need to learn a little about the law. Obama said he is going to review EXECUTIVE ORDERS, not legislation. Executive orders come from the President and do not go through Congress.
- Posted by BobIt is clear from looking over the comments that many people are not aware of the laws or executive decisions issued by George Bush without the benefit of congressional approval. Barak Obama will review and overturn those that violate the constitution.
- Posted by MaryFor the first time in 8 years I have hope.
- Posted by kerryKdurham68 sounds like a pundit on fox news who knows how to word things intelligently but relies on the ignorance of those watching to believe they are valid questions and/or statements. Obviously, executive orders can be reversed, and any other Bush legislation that has been passed can be overturned by Obama suggesting new policy directions that a freshly democratic congress would be glad to follow through with new legislation to stamp out the old policies. Remember Bush giving all those speeches at the beginning of his first term that influenced the country to accept borderline marshall law in order to “protect us”? Imagine President Obama doing that in the opposite direction. Easy, considering we’re all starting to feel the nasty side-effects of allowing all that unconstitutional crap to happen. As senator, Obama did not have the same influence on passing legislation that the president had. Senators have one vote. The president can veto. As president, I trust Obama can reverse this horrible trend of eroding our constitutional democracy via Bush Doctrine. The only roadblock would be our hyper-conservative judiciary branch (once again thanks to Bush), which would probably be overriden by a 2/3 congressional majority vote. Say goodbye to the Bush years, cause it’s time for the REAL 21st century to begin.
- Posted by JohanCan we put impeachment back on the table?
Supplemental question: is it still “impeachment” to prosecute an ex-president after he has left office for crimes committed while he was in office?
- Posted by Nicholas Hunter- Posted by kdurham68 (I have an answer for you. It sounds like you are new to policymaking process)
Mr. Obama, I must ask you two questions:
1) As you are and have been a member of the United States Senate for the last four years, I would have expected you would have evaluated any legislation during that time period to insure you were helping to pass only laws which are constitutional. Do you, therefore, only intend to review laws from before you were a member of the Senate for Constitutionality or are those laws enacted since you took office also planned for review? If the former, please explain why you failed to take the time while you were in the Senate to review what your predecessors had done. If the latter, please explain why you were lax in carrying out your duties as a US Senator?
ANSWER: The laws that are passed by the US Senate are laws that can be over ridden by the house and senate. The President however has executive privilege to make laws that if not contested by the majority in the House and Senate can stay in the books until the majority of the House and Senate (2/3) reject it or until the next President get into Office. If you feel there are laws that were passed and are unconstitutional, I suggest you frame it clearly so I can look at it and address them.
2) Since you have indicated it is your intention, if elected, to meet with your Attorney General to review existing legislation and overturn that which you consider unconstitutional, I must ask you to please identify precisely what power granted by the Constitution to the office of the Presidency allows such a unilateral action on your behalf? Do you believe that you are not personally subject to the US Constitution? The Separation of Powers given by that historic and monumental document does not allow the President to subsume the functions of the courts and the judiciary.
ANSWER: I am personally subjected to the US Constitution as were our founding fathers: Adam, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc… and will not make myself above the law. I will try to address overturn however if only the majority of the House and Senate are in Favor. I will not impose my views on anyone but will fight to persuade for what is common sense right with no strings attached lawmakers to work in a bipartisan fashion to at least address it on the floor and win the majority. My motto in the run to the Presidency is “engaging in a different kind of politics” that is for you and the many Americans alike.
- Posted by DanielSome of you need to do your research and stop listening to Limbaugh and crew before you get on here slandering Senator Obama. He was IN FACT a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be “a professor.”
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
- Posted by Southern GirlIt’s gonna come down to the old fogies in Florida. He doesnt have a shot at them
- Posted by marknyckdurham68:
The presidents oath of office requires him to faithfully uphold the constitution. If a law, even if passed by congress, is unconstitutional, it is illegal. And it is the DUTY of the president to overturn it. If the Supreme Court agrees with Congress that the law IS constitutional they can overrule the president.
There are three EQUAL branches of government. But they ALL are charged with upholding the constitution.
- Posted by LewHip hip hurrah! OUr constitution has been consistently raped by Bush and Gang and I can’t think of a better way to start to regain our foothold on our forefather’s plan for our democratic republic. Go for it, Obama. A feminist and veteran for Sen.Obama for President
- Posted by J. TeresaMost Americans do not know that laws can passed and be enforced but not constitutional until someone challenges them before the Supreme Court we really never know unless they are blantant disregards for the Constitution it’s self. Which I believe some og Bush\’s were. Remember he said it the Constitution is just paper.
- Posted by James WilsonMost Americans do not know that laws can passed and be enforced but not constitutional until someone challenges them before the Supreme Court we really never know unless they are blantant disregards for the Constitution it’s self. Which I believe some og Bush’s were. Remember he said it the Constitution is just paper.
- Posted by James WilsonThere are specific rules (laws) layed down by Congress that specify how both executive orders, signing statements and Administrative Rules are issued. Bush ignored these laws in an attempt to legislate rather than execute the law.
For instance, in passing an Administrative Rule one of the Congressional mandates is that Administrative Rules are required to be open to public comment before they become law. On nearly every Administrative Rule that Bush passed, he illegally bypassed public comment because he knew that the rules he proposed wouldn’t pass muster with the public.
Repubs and conservatives railed against Clinton for passing the “Roadless Rule” at the end of his presidency. But anyone familiar with the process would have known that Clinton proposed the Roadless Rule 6 years prior to its implementation. It took 6 years of public comment before it was legally implemented. It garnered over 1 million signatures from citizens in its favor. But with the stroke of a pen and no public comment, Bush illegally did away with it. As mentioned earlier, it was reinstituted by court decree after years of litigation and millions of dollars that proved the illegality of Bush’s attempt to circumvent the process. When you consider having to do this with the thousands of illegal orders/rules/statements, the task would be daunting. Thus the necessity of the next president doing it as proposed by Obama.
If nothing, Cheney/Rumsfeld are bureaucratic geniuses because, after having served under 3 prior presidents, they learned how to circumvent the Constitution. They knew full well that they could use Administrative Rules, executive orders and signing statements illegally by the thousands and that it would take decades of litigation to overturn their mischief. All they’re concerned with is that their twisting of the rules would work for them in the short term until they were out of office.
As Sy Hersh has documented, they and 9 of their neo-con cohorts took over the apparatus of gov. by placing their people in key spots of the bureaucracy. That’s how they controlled the intelligence that justified an unjustifiable war.
- Posted by CraigApparently Kdurham68 can’t read (which is not surprising). He said he’d overturn EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Congress doesn’t vote on executive orders. That’s the point of them & that’s why Bush has been getting away with so much. And even if they weren’t EO’s, the Republicans had a majority until 2006. He could have voted against something and it still would have passed.
- Posted by EddieIn answer to kdurham68’s question regarding where the executive derives his constitutional power. The executive office has the power to overturn or uphold any executive orders from previous administrations. As far as bills passed I would imagine they will likely be challenged in the court system.
- Posted by cnorrisGreat news from Obama. I hope one of the first things he does is totally dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.
- Posted by Luke CasalitaWhat’s there to scrutinize, just about everything is illegal, he knows it, you know it, and everyone else should know it. Overturn everything.
- Posted by mtravits funny how we’ve had almost 8 years of fascism and obama says this and all these people are crying “marxist!” fools.
- Posted by cole holidayThis is truly welcome news. This headline alone speaks to a huge reason for voting OBAMA in November. But, of course, I am terribly biased . . . I believe in the Constitution.
- Posted by Paul Olson