Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory.LEGISLATIVE FACE!!!!!!! Try not to get your inappropriate oversight on fund reallocation all over Barry's budget, Pelosi. It's nice though to see Barry continue the legacy set forth by Andrew Jackson. I mean I guess he was just bitching about the Bush signing statements, not the signing statements themselves. Here's one major difference between an Obama signing statement and a Bush one: one is based around constitutional legal precedent over funding and the other was based around declaring entire laws invalid. So Obama has tackled this area in a different manner.
Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
Still, could you not have broke it out the same week you get all "constitutional reviewy" on you predecessor's ones. This and the 'enemy combatant' thing and the 'state secrets' thing, and a bunch of other things are making me and Glenn Greenwald paranoid. I'm not buying tinfoil to make into hats, but I'm pricing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment