Obama will add signing statement objecting to the McCain-Levin amendment on the jurisdiction of terror suspects captured outside of the US:
Setting aside the substantuive issue for just a second, here is candidate Obama in 2008 explaining how awful the use of signing statements is and how he vowed not to cause such an affront to the Constitution:
[i]Q: When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signage [sic] to get your way?
OBAMA: Yes. [Applause] Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. You know, weâ??ve got a government designed by the founders so that thereâ??d be checks and balances. You donâ??t want a President thatâ??s too powerful or a Congress thatâ??s too powerful or courts that are too powerful. Everybodyâ??s got their own role. Congressâ?? job is to pass legislation.
The President can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do is part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, is, heâ??s been saying, â??Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says â??I donâ??t agree with this partâ?? or â??I donâ??t agree with that part.â?? Iâ??m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.â?? Uh, thatâ??s not part of his power.
But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as heâ??s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. Weâ??re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.[/i]
Of course, when you're the 4th greatest president in the history of the country, perhaps such contradictions are forgiven.