Obama: I'll discard Bush's unconstitutional executive orders

I see your point, but we know the fat (or the meat) has to be cut somewhere, especially for bettering education. And a tremendous amount of money is spent in the space program. I do agree though it is needed. Hopefully, the cuts he's planning are on areas where money is unnecessarily spent. Every government program probably has that kind of excess.

Eh, I don't mind cutting money in that area. NASA moves too slow and I wouldn't mind seeing some private explorations into that area of research. Probably see more interesting developments that way.

I see your point, but we know the fat (or the meat) has to be cut somewhere, especially for bettering education. And a tremendous amount of money is spent in the space program. I do agree though it is needed. Hopefully, the cuts he's planning are on areas where money is unnecessarily spent. Every government program probably has that kind of excess.

If the question is, "Where can we find some money to fund education?" than any answer that doesn't start with "cut military funding" is the wrong one.

If Obama has to overturn these illegal laws, he also has to go after impeachment for these crimes. Obama, like Hillary all use rhetoric, but when it comes to supporting the Constitution, and the call for war crimes tribunals, investigations, there is silence. Rhetoric is free. Action, now and the call for prosecution of these law breakers will show he is real.

I wouldn't mind seeing some private explorations into that area of research.

You won't though, except for tourism. No quarterly profits in anything else.

Eh, I don't mind cutting money in that area. NASA moves too slow and I wouldn't mind seeing some private explorations into that area of research.

NASA does tend to move slowly, but over the years we have gained vital advances from their programs and perhaps the answer is to fund and spur their research further, rather than cut back because it just isn't as exciting as it used to be. The problem with leaning on private industry to continue where NASA leaves off is that private industry only goes where there is profit. If there's no profit to be made from going to Io, for example, they are not going to do it.

I'm with Adam, above: if you need more money for education, we have some to spare in our bloated military budget.

If the question is, "Where can we find some money to fund education?" than any answer that doesn't start with "cut military funding" is the wrong one.

Absolutely, it is an answer that ignores the elephant in the room, and I would posit that private contractor funding could be in the crosshairs as well. Although, the closure of corporate welfare tax loopholes could probably contribute substantially to school funding.

I feel the same way.
I am not pleased with his plans/comments addressing NASA.

Also, I love how much he supports government transparency.

Amen.

He will certainly perform the review. He's not saying which ones he will deem unconstitutional. Maybe none of them.

If Obama has to turn around these unconstitutional laws, then "he has to" impeach, and call for prosecution of these criminals, even after they have left office.

Eric, that's an excellent point. How can one simultaneously think these things are illegal, but also that Bush shouldn't be impeached for committing crimes? That's as contradictory as it gets.

I'm sure Bush had each and every one of his little executive orders vetted for constitutionality before signing them. And he got away with it and he kept getting away with it and no one really cared or really paid much any attention because the the whole process was so unbearably complicated the Democrats couldn't figure out how to make a simplistic issue out of it and the vast majority of Bush's supporters were so simple and lazy-minded they were just happy to have their way one more time.

Now how competent is Alberto Gonzalez, really? Harriett Meirs? John Ashcroft? I hope Obama makes an effort to investigate this and at least bring it to the Publics attention in a way the Public can understand. Probably nothing will happen but nothing would make me happier than seeing Bush spend at least 8 years in prison (if not more). When he's done with that, turn him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove over to the Hague for War Crimes. If the shoe(s) fit, let them wear them - no Jellin' please.

Eight years of fighting a War over Signing Documents is worth it - if Bush and his team are not exposed for what they are, it will all be repeated again soon. I had to put up with DeLay et. al. whine over spilt ejaculate for at least 4 years. He should spend at least that much time in prison for the pornography he and his ilk kept in the news for all of that time.

Thank God for Ronnie Earle......

Torture is not an insignificant issue.

@rylz said:

I just hope that an Obama presidency wouldn't establish a negative precedent of throwing out substantial portions of the previous party's work after a change in power.

The precedent has been long-established. Just take a look at the history of the Mexico Rule a.k.a. The Global Gag Rule for a classic example. It removes eligibility for US funding for any foreign-aid organization which provides abortions, recommends abortions, teaches about abortions, or even lobbies a foreign government for changes in abortion law. It was introduced under President Reagan and continued under President Bush I. One of President Clinton's very first acts when he entered office was to repeal the rule. But then, one of President Bush II's first acts was to re-instate it. It's a stupid, anti-democratic rule whose enforcement has led to untold amounts of suffering, starvation, and poverty.

If you hope that an Obama presidency doesn't overturn Bush's "work", then just why in hell bother voting Democrat? McCain has pledged to keep things going the same way. There's your man.

He will, of course.

A list of some specific ones that he thinks would be "discarded" would be nice, but than voters would have something concrete to hold him to, instead of his usual rhetoric. This way he leaves himself wiggle room.

Not the Judicial Nazis who have themselves participated in the shredding of the Constitution.

As I recall, didn't the article say that he would have his Attorney General review them?

He is not asking Congress or -- despite its rabidly partisan bias toward an Imperial Presidency -- the Judiciary to review these acts. He is not offering to empanel an independent advisory board or commission to investigate and review President Bush's excesses and illegal actions.

Very good point, and I would definitely be much happier if he pledged to do so (as, I think, would a lot of people). Just saying he would be open to reviewing them and getting rid of some is still more than we have heard from the other candidates, but I agree that he should go much further. Think I'll write a letter.... :)

All day happy hour!

I totally agree. Hillary rarely mentions the erosion of our civil liberties. Frankly I believe it is because she is more than willing to inherit the new powers.

@Rob: Is that how Senator Obama's "new politics" works? Are his typical supporters willing to just make stuff up when they need to maintain their faith? What would make a supporter of Senator Obama "believe" that Senator Clinton is so evil and Machiavellian? Is there some body of research into her public statements and writings that her opponents draw on when which indicates that she "rarely" mentions civil liberties? Maybe they're just drawing on conventional "wisdom" invented by Republicans and now adopted by Senator Obama's followers which says "Everyone know Hillary is a liar and a thief and a murderer and a lesbian and evil, etc." Or are they just pulling that crap out of their collective ass?

You see, the reason this was a news story in the first place is most likely because Senator Obama has "rarely" said anything about how he will deal with the abuses of executive power in the Bush Administration. If he'd made a point of saying it before now, then the media, which laps up his every word, would have found it to be old news by now.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton may "rarely" mention civil liberties, but back in October, 2007, she sat down for an interview with The Guardian's new editor of their US edition, Michael Tomasky, and the first question went like this:

I want to start with some questions about foreign policy and terrorism. If you become president you'll enter the White House with far more power than, say, your husband had. What is your view of this? And what specific powers might you relinquish as president, or renegotiate with Congress - for example the power to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant?

Well, I think it is clear that the power grab undertaken by the Bush-Cheney administration has gone much further than any other president and has been sustained for longer. Other presidents, like Lincoln, have had to take on extraordinary powers but would later go to the Congress for either ratification or rejection. But when you take the view that they're not extraordinary powers, but they're inherent powers that reside in the office and therefore you have neither obligation to request permission nor to ask for ratification, we're in a new territory here. And I think that I'm gonna have to review everything they've done because I've been on the receiving end of that. There were a lot of actions which they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted or that in my view that was inherent in the constitution. There were other actions they've taken which could have obtained congressional authorization but they deliberately chose not to pursue it as a matter of principle.

I guess I'm asking, can a president, once in the White House, actually give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle?

Oh, absolutely, Michael. I mean that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.

Where is a comparable statement on ceding executive power from Senator Obama? There might be one, but I haven't found it yet, although I would be happy to find out that he intends on reversing some of the Bush power grabs. Perhaps you'd like to show what "new politics" is like by retracting your groundless slur against Senator Clinton's character? Perhaps you'd like to support your candidate honestly by talking about his positives rather than his opponent's negatives?

I find Senator Obama to have a great deal of integrity but to many of his supporters, the idea of "hope and change" is just a tactic for winning.

Hmmmm... the quote you displayed sounds pretty vague to me.. and If you read my post, it said "rarely mentions" I didnt say ever. Here is a video clip of Obama, speaking on some of the issues. He is straight forward and specific. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4

Her message seems to be - I'll take it under review -

Perhaps you'd like to support your candidate honestly by talking about his positives rather than his opponent's negatives?

Wait, really? Because, if that's the expectation that we're holding people to, I'm going to need you to spend more time on the front page. Unless I'm mistaken -- when Obama fans praise Obama, they're ridiculed for being part of a cult, and they're called deluded for not understanding how things really work and now they're being told that they can't focus on the negatives of his opponent either -- an opponent who has spent the last several months focusing on Obama's negatives while whining about how "dirty" his campaign has been. Further, Hilary's supporters on Newsvine AND the conservatives on Newsvine who don't want to see Obama face off against McCain have been constant with their negative commentary about Obama. Where are the calls for them to focus on their own candidate rather than slamming Obama.

Ultimately, it seems to me that people who don't support Obama want his supporters to not talk too much about him, but also don't say anything negative about his competition. Sounds convenient.

The fact is, it's coming from both sides and when you want to win, you have to point out why you should win -- and part of that is talking about why the other side shouldn't.

Yeah... I ignored that part of Evano's statement. Any Clinton supporter who would say it is unfair to criticise Hillary, is at the very least delusional. If Evano was aware of the dirty kitchen sink slimy, throw the party under the bus politics Hillary has been engaged in... those word wouldn't have ever been posted in the first place. Certainly responding wont change what 3 weeks of Clintonian Wag the Dog politricks couldn't.

@Brian: Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but to me the key points in my comment above were honesty, a basis in facts, and a mature sense of accountability for one's statements. That means telling the truth, avoiding rumors and conspiracy theories and inuendo, and being able to admit when you are wrong.

There are hysterical supporters of both -- all candidates -- on Newsvine, but I'm pretty sure I haven't been one of them. If you read my comments on this page and on other articles (and you don't do like some people do and ignore the parts you don't agree with), you'll see that I'm taking issue with fact-free statements by know-it-alls who really know nothing. I take issue with slurs which originated with the worst right-wing scum being tossed about as if there were any truth behind them.

I'm not asking supporters of Senator Obama to stop talking about him; I want more facts and information about him. I want to know what his supporters find in his policies and promises that are superior to Senator Clinton's -- without bringing insults, name-calling and idiotic character assassination into the discussion. I want to hear intelligent discussion about issues by people who recognize that this election is more complex and more important and deserves more thought than trash-talk at a footbal game. I want to hear why people support him, so that if he becomes the Democratic candidate I can support him just as strongly.

Take a look at this page: see all the links to information everyone is providing? See the way everyone is doing their best to present their arguments and reinforce their statements? No, you don't. Other than Rob's link above to a YouTube video (shown completely out of context, where Senator Obama says nothing about ceding any of the powers appropriated by President Bush), the only links on the page are in my comments. I spend time and effort writing and researching comments and providing appropriate links because I'm here to get smarter, and if I learn something, I figure some of the other people here might be interested in learning something, too.

And finally, please don't try to argue that because some of Senator Clinton's supporters are using slurs and negative attacks that it's okay for Senator Obama's supporters to do the same. That argument hasn't worked for most of us since we turned three years old. I'm just as disgusted as many of you at some of the people who agree with my choice of candidate, for whatever reason. But I expect that you'll treat them with the contempt they deserve, while addressing my points as the thoughts of one individual who is not a representative of anyone but myself.