5 ms·

Then you veto the entire bill - explaining why.

sp332 15y ago
He would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand. Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  He still should have vetoed it. Once Congress knew he was willing to go that far, Congress would have been up against the wall and had to drop it in order for the paychecks to continue.
  - shadowfiend 15y ago
    It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to pick your fights. Then again, I'm extremely angry at him about this, too, so... Yeah, whatever. Heh. Though really I'm angry about the overall civil liberties history of the administration. This is just the proverbial straw.
    - jonhendry 15y ago
      "It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. " Maybe. Or they could drop the problematic bit and redo it. Either way, the paychecks would go out.
      - hammerdr 15y ago
        You have to understand that the system isn't that simple. Bills do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot view these things as independent and completely unrelated to everything else going around it. Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources. Like shadowfiend, I'm not defending the decision to make civil liberties a lower priority than other issues (I am vehemently against that), but if you want to be someone that is more than a whiner then you need to first understand and then work to change it.
        crgt 15y ago
        "He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable" Why is this a bad thing?
        shadowfiend 15y ago
        It's a good thing if the public understands. If they don't, you're hosed, because the bill passes anyway (there were 2/3s margins in both houses of Congress) and you get a Republican president, who is highly likely not to apply the already sad principles set forth in the signing statement.
        jasonlotito 15y ago
        > You have to understand that the system isn't that simple. No, see, you are the one failing to understand. We understand what you are saying. We still disagree with it. At some point, someone has to stand up and say "No, this is wrong." Someone has to call out Congress and the President for using the military's pay check to erode our rights. The President could have done this. He didn't. He elected to accept the measure, despite disagreeing with it.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        jonhendry 15y ago
        "Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources." Sure, but running against Congress is often a very good thing. Especially when their approval ratings are so low. And much of Obama's putative 'base' would have preferred he veto it. Obama could probably make the case by going on Fox and asking if he should have the power to send Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to prison without a trial for an indefinite amount of time. "Stop me before I send Glenn Beck to Gitmo".
      - shadowfiend 15y ago
        What hammerdr said. But in addition, I'll add: if Congress can override the veto (this bill passed both houses of Congress with greater than 2/3s of the vote, so it's unlikely they couldn't), then they most likely will.
- lightyrs 15y ago
  You are being played. The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions. What Obama actually means, albeit couched in very clever legalese, is that his problems with these "regulations" is that they even exist at all. He would rather his ability to prosecute the "war on terror" be completely unchecked.
  - CPlatypus 15y ago
    "The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions." [citation needed]
    - scott_w 15y ago
      3rd Paragraph http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/02/ndaa-historic-assault-american-liberty?newsfeed=true http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/... Skip to about 0:25 where the fun stuff starts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo
      - lightyrs 15y ago
        Thanks scott_w.
      - greenyoda 15y ago
        The clip at 0:25 he's referring to is Senator Carl Levin (Democrat from Michigan and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) speaking in front of the Senate, as broadcast by C-SPAN. So it seems to be quite credible.
      - rd108 15y ago
        thank you.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  It doesn't matter. You don't dismantle the Bill of Rights just because you have to delay the military salaries for one month, until Congress rewrites the bill. The problem with Obama is that Congress knows he's, for lack of a better word, a coward. So they know that they can push his hand how much they want, because he won't do anything dramatic to react and fight back. That's why Obama has kept losing all his negotiations or he always "compromised" for the other side's sake. So bottomline, he should've taken a stand and vetoed it, and let that be a lesson for Congress for next time. But he didn't do that. And if you're going to say "but Congress would've passed it anyway with 2/3 of the vote" - well then, even more of a reason to veto it and show his supporters that at least tried to stop it, but Congress was solely at fault for passing it. Since he didn't, Obama doesn't get to have any excuses in this case.
wtracy 15y ago
Your explanation will be edited down to two-second soundbites by the media that manage to miss your point entirely. The opposition will completely ignore your argument completely and repeatedly tell the party faithful that you vetoed the bill that would have given the hard-working American servicemen and women their deserved salaries. (If you're really lucky, you'll be accused of "flip-flopping"--because Real Men stake out a position of being Pro-X or Anti-Y and never, ever budge.) There is no such thing as a nuanced opinion in Washington politics today.

sp332 15y ago

He would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand. Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.

jonhendry 15y ago
He still should have vetoed it. Once Congress knew he was willing to go that far, Congress would have been up against the wall and had to drop it in order for the paychecks to continue.
- shadowfiend 15y ago
  It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to pick your fights. Then again, I'm extremely angry at him about this, too, so... Yeah, whatever. Heh. Though really I'm angry about the overall civil liberties history of the administration. This is just the proverbial straw.
  - jonhendry 15y ago
    "It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. " Maybe. Or they could drop the problematic bit and redo it. Either way, the paychecks would go out.
    - hammerdr 15y ago
      You have to understand that the system isn't that simple. Bills do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot view these things as independent and completely unrelated to everything else going around it. Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources. Like shadowfiend, I'm not defending the decision to make civil liberties a lower priority than other issues (I am vehemently against that), but if you want to be someone that is more than a whiner then you need to first understand and then work to change it.
      - crgt 15y ago
        "He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable" Why is this a bad thing?
        shadowfiend 15y ago
        It's a good thing if the public understands. If they don't, you're hosed, because the bill passes anyway (there were 2/3s margins in both houses of Congress) and you get a Republican president, who is highly likely not to apply the already sad principles set forth in the signing statement.
      - jasonlotito 15y ago
        > You have to understand that the system isn't that simple. No, see, you are the one failing to understand. We understand what you are saying. We still disagree with it. At some point, someone has to stand up and say "No, this is wrong." Someone has to call out Congress and the President for using the military's pay check to erode our rights. The President could have done this. He didn't. He elected to accept the measure, despite disagreeing with it.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - jonhendry 15y ago
        "Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources." Sure, but running against Congress is often a very good thing. Especially when their approval ratings are so low. And much of Obama's putative 'base' would have preferred he veto it. Obama could probably make the case by going on Fox and asking if he should have the power to send Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to prison without a trial for an indefinite amount of time. "Stop me before I send Glenn Beck to Gitmo".
    - shadowfiend 15y ago
      What hammerdr said. But in addition, I'll add: if Congress can override the veto (this bill passed both houses of Congress with greater than 2/3s of the vote, so it's unlikely they couldn't), then they most likely will.
lightyrs 15y ago
You are being played. The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions. What Obama actually means, albeit couched in very clever legalese, is that his problems with these "regulations" is that they even exist at all. He would rather his ability to prosecute the "war on terror" be completely unchecked.
- CPlatypus 15y ago
  "The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions." [citation needed]
  - scott_w 15y ago
    3rd Paragraph http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/02/ndaa-historic-assault-american-liberty?newsfeed=true http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/... Skip to about 0:25 where the fun stuff starts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo
    - lightyrs 15y ago
      Thanks scott_w.
    - greenyoda 15y ago
      The clip at 0:25 he's referring to is Senator Carl Levin (Democrat from Michigan and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) speaking in front of the Senate, as broadcast by C-SPAN. So it seems to be quite credible.
    - rd108 15y ago
      thank you.
nextparadigms 15y ago
It doesn't matter. You don't dismantle the Bill of Rights just because you have to delay the military salaries for one month, until Congress rewrites the bill. The problem with Obama is that Congress knows he's, for lack of a better word, a coward. So they know that they can push his hand how much they want, because he won't do anything dramatic to react and fight back. That's why Obama has kept losing all his negotiations or he always "compromised" for the other side's sake. So bottomline, he should've taken a stand and vetoed it, and let that be a lesson for Congress for next time. But he didn't do that. And if you're going to say "but Congress would've passed it anyway with 2/3 of the vote" - well then, even more of a reason to veto it and show his supporters that at least tried to stop it, but Congress was solely at fault for passing it. Since he didn't, Obama doesn't get to have any excuses in this case.

wtracy 15y ago

Your explanation will be edited down to two-second soundbites by the media that manage to miss your point entirely. The opposition will completely ignore your argument completely and repeatedly tell the party faithful that you vetoed the bill that would have given the hard-working American servicemen and women their deserved salaries. (If you're really lucky, you'll be accused of "flip-flopping"--because Real Men stake out a position of being Pro-X or Anti-Y and never, ever budge.) There is no such thing as a nuanced opinion in Washington politics today.