Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Savvy Wabbit
3463 Followers
Agnostic_god_
1868 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Andrey Nosatîi
116 Followers
david_nivenJan 15, 2012
I find the response from the administration very encouraging. The only thing that I wish for is a full veto and not some executive note just claiming disapproval while the bill get signed as was done with the NDAA.
My true true wish is that neither of the bills make it out of their respective congressional houses.
Both of the bills are absolutely disgusting examples of how corporations have taken OUR government away to defend their profits.
wkrausmannJan 15, 2012
This is good news, but it still doesn't excuse them for passing the NDAA.
peppermintpigJan 15, 2012
Which happened to be the more severe violation of liberty. It's a warmongering smokescreen for Obama to take what is otherwise an obviously unpopular piece of legislation and decry it as censorship.
mistermysterJan 15, 2012
The NDAA had to be passed or else the military and the soldiers' families would run out of money at the end of the year. The NDAA itself was the military budget for 2012 so not passing it would be political suicide.
wkrausmannJan 15, 2012
Okay, let me be more specific: it does not excuse them for putting measures into the 2012 NDAA that gives the federal government powers to eliminate Constitutional rights on American citizens.
He didn't have to pass everything in it. He could have removed some provisions and kept the important aspects in tact. He said he was not pleased with it but signed it. I wonder what pressures he was under to sign it and from whom.
vision777Jan 15, 2012
President is not the king he cannot pick and choose parts of a bill.
wkrausmannJan 16, 2012
Ronald Reagan was a strong proponent of the line-item veto so that he could remove pork from bills. It would have been useful here.
mistermysterJan 15, 2012
It should be known that Congress had a veto-proof majority with NDAA so stopping it is like stopping a train while trapped in a tunnel. The best Obama did was urge Congress to change the language that Americans be tried like war criminals via military tribunal to being tried as civilians via the regular courts. They followed through with that, so Obama had to sign it. It's still not good, but it's slightly better.
Regardless, it's a horrible position to be in because there's no way out to make that s**t sandwich taste good and we are still forced to eat it. His administration are on the record that they won't being using that provision. I will believe it when I see it. But what future administrations will do is anyone's guess.
wkrausmannJan 16, 2012
I honestly don't see them ever detaining people without due-process, so I don't see them ever having to use any provision of this aspect of the law. People just hate the idea that it's there and that it can be used.
Ouzel7Jan 15, 2012
Dear David -
Digg doesn't like you. I want you to know that you have my respect because you speak your mind even when the trolls troll ya!
dauntless1Jan 15, 2012
And yet, he as of this moment (His comment is 8 hours and 29 minutes old) has 0 buries. I dugg his comment, which happens almost never. Just because I don't like Niven doesn't mean I bury him without looking.
Just like everyone else I meet here, if he says something I agree with, I can give him my digg.
letsgetreal50Jan 15, 2012
I dugg him up just like many liberals and progressives did. But only when he says something true. Which is rare in my opinion. Most the time he's just a Digg Patriot, IMO.
bluenose2Jan 15, 2012
I dugg him up as well.I am surprised as he may be.
letsgetreal50Jan 15, 2012
Shocker.
rockergirlieJan 15, 2012
The administration also claimed disapproval of DEA raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, as well as any measures preventing LGBT couples from marrying. I'm in your boat here.... disapproval does not mean it won't change its mind in 5 minutes.
jkaticJan 15, 2012
To repeat
The decision to crack down on medical pot establishments in the Golden State was a collective decision by four U.S. attorneys in California and not the result of any directive from Washington, according to a spokesman for California-based U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr.
Federal prosecutors launched an attack on medical marijuana shop owners last week, vowing to shutter state-licensed marijuana dispensaries regulated by local governments and threatening landlords with property seizures.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/crackdown-medical-marijuana-california_n_1011780.html
rockergirlieJan 15, 2012
I was referencing the raids over the past 4 years which directly involved DEA agents in the Los Angeles and Oakland areas.
nerysJan 15, 2012
all I care about now is will we spot the reach around where they screw us by slipping it into another "can't not pass" bill like the NDAA
dusanmalJan 15, 2012
How is "...To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S [laws]..." encouraging? No to censorship! [small print: originating within US borders only]. Can anyone notice that the King is naked? This statement is directly in support of "National Internet" and Great Firewall of US.
jkaticJan 15, 2012
NDAA is basically the military budget with troubling provisions which were ammended and is something completely under Obama's control. He doesn't need to compromise on SOPA etc as they would be standalone bills without veto proof majorities. Keep in mind that if SOPA passes with veto proof majority, a Presidential veto won't stop it so better to stay on guard and keep up the protests.
letsgetreal50Jan 15, 2012
It's a bipartisan Bill. No one can really stop it. The Republicans want this so much that they droll at the chance to have this as law.
It's bad for both parties and bad for the country. Our Bill of Rights just got tossed.
wilke2000Jan 15, 2012
What do you find encouraging? Do you know about Obama negotiating ACTA in secret?
exspasticcomicsJan 15, 2012
The entertainment industry IS the problem. I don't think the entertainment industry & congress should be allowed to 'work' together anymore. LOL.
bluenose2Jan 14, 2012
We shall see.
elisevilleJan 15, 2012
He also publically announced that he would not sign the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) that included the highly controversial (as in it defies the Bill of Right's protection against imprisonment without trial, for anyone and everyone).
Yet he signed that on Christmas Eve when the absolute least number of people were likely to notice. Which next holiday would hide such perfidy again? I trust him to use his words well to placate us, but do what he personally wants or thinks the powerful want nonetheless.
We bought ourselves a Constitutional Scholar who knows how to undermine the Constitution, not protect it.
wilke2000Jan 15, 2012
To be accurate, though, Obama issued his initial veto threat because he didn't think the NDAA gave him enough power. It was Obama who asked Carl Levin (D) to but the indefinite detention provisions into the bill in the first place.
I think your comment is getting buried by delusional democrats who think Obama (protecting CIA torturers, extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens, antagonism against the Iranian “axis of evil,” indefinite detention, military commissions, continual erosion of 4th Amendment protections, Republican-inspired corporate handouts to the health care industry under the guise of reform, etc) is the only bulwark against the neo-con agenda.
elisevilleJan 17, 2012
The risk of getting buried is no reason for me to not speak the truth as closely as I see it.
Thx for the clarification on the Obama veto threat against the repressive and anti-Constitutional NDAA. I believe that many of the people who did catch that news, were led to believe that he was protecting the Constitutional rights of the people, even as he was insisting on that language being included, but balking at any limits on his power that they might add. Even with his worthless "Signing Statement" pledge that he will not use this new power, it is part of our law now and he or any other President legally can and soon enough will use it against us. Ultimately, it does not specifically matter much, since he already has claimed and used the "right" to murder Americans (and any foreigner he chooses) by robotic DRONE.
Though a Democratic voter all my life, Obama has been making it clearer than pure light to me that the old saying "POWER CORRUPTS, BUT ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY" is an ultimate truth.
Only the Occupy movement has been closing in on a way to organize society without power sitting in any one person's hands. Our government would destroy them also.
anomaly100Jan 14, 2012
Toss this law in the paper shredder!
mtownJan 15, 2012
The term "Paper Shredder" belongs to Staples Incorporated™ and it's affiliated companies, and the offending portions of your comment will soon be redacted in accordance with SOPA. In the future, please use the easy remember term, "Electronic Paper-Slicing Dispensary" when referring to a Paper Shredder™.
chopperguyJan 15, 2012
Why don't the big labels just buy out Geeks or pay other companies and enforce censorship / IP blocking themselves? Ohh! I know. Geeks are not for sale... politicians are. PS. Please don't digg me down. I don't download, hate censorship and am as clueless about how the internet works as average politicans.
izultJan 15, 2012
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you” - Nietzsche ..
The days I blindly believe anything a politician says are long gone.
laurahoustonJan 15, 2012
Table the whole fricking scam bills for 20 years,tell the pirated'personhoods' to get a lawyer and sue the f**king pirates themself
not even a tiny cut-up piece of these scam bills- should be passed.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
They've been trying to sue Pirate Bay for years. It's actually pretty hilarious.
particleman420Jan 15, 2012
it's so hard since Pirate Bay doesnt actually pirate or host any of the pirated software.
StrongTacoJan 15, 2012
Suing the "pirate" does nothing - copyright law makes no sense to begin with.
It's supposed to protect the creator so they get fairly paid for their work while they are alive. But thanks to Disney, the law now lasts long after the creator is dead and decomposed and instead of going into the public domain where everyone can enjoy it, it's kept locked away under this draconian law.
stubearJan 15, 2012
This argument might mean something IF people were only pirating stuff that was decades old or even stuff where the authors are recently deceased. This is simply not the case for the majority of the works on the torrent sites.
Also, copyright doesn't JUST protect the authors profits, it protects their right to limit the use of the work or to have the ability to sell the limited rights should they wish.
downshiftdxJan 15, 2012
Perhaps it is time to rethink the entire concept? The human mind has developed increasingly sophisticated means of copying and transmitting pertinent information since we first developed symbolic understanding. Information storage and transmission is constantly evolving thanks to our own abilities, yet strangely our best attempts to fully secure and restrict information use remains useless, propped up only by laws and the idea of a right to perpetually control and profit.
If the concept of copyright cannot compete against the new and changing abilities of information to move freely then maybe it is time to come up with something new. Maybe the nature of information technology demands you can't assume to have all the same rights anymore? Why should anyone presume to have the right to limit the use of something just because they originally created it? I'd prefer to see full freedom of access and use since no idea or information can be limited once it has been brought into the world and set free and realistically that is what technology is giving us. You could and should register your original works and derivatives with a central office so that a trail of who to credit with what can be maintained, but for purposes of control it seems unrealistic.
I can't stamp out a factory exact hard copy of a movie or an album. Nor can I have a movie theater or live music or play performance experience at home. Same goes for a jpeg or png of a fine work of art. It isn't the same as having the autographed original on your wall.
These products can still exist even if the informational content was freely available to all, though their abundance may be diminished somewhat. But life is change. Will the producers suffer losses? Yup, but then they could stop fighting technology and just do what everything does and adapt to the new conditions. What about the artists being compensated? That is why they should do productions in physical media to sell. Those who are most interested in your works will still want to own the physical, legitimate, and probably signed and numbered copy. This physical item has far more value by scarcity/popularity than bits in a computer.
stubearJan 15, 2012
"Nor can I have a movie theater or live music or play performance experience at home."
You CAN have a BETTER movie experience with a decent HDTV and audio system without breaking the bank. And while you can't have a live experience, overrated in most cases IMHO, you CAN listen to a live album on a decent sound system and enjoy the music just as much, if not more (most likely without damaging your hearing in the process).
"What about the artists being compensated?"
Artists have always been able to sell their work on their own, no one forced them to sign a contract relinquishing their rights to their work in return for remuneration. It's even easier today with the internet and social media but it's also not as lucrative and some people still prefer not having to work as artist, manager, roadie, etc. if they don't have to. Being a musician isn't the glamorous life everyone thinks it is for most bands.
And what about other forms of art and expression? How does an author perform their book? What about painters, sculptors, and photographers? Many pieces of their work CAN be copied, albeit not necessarily as easy as music and videos. What about software developers? Do you honestly believe open source software is really going to carry innovation forward? It hasn't yet nor does it really show any signs of doing so. Most OS projects are me too applications meant to offer free versions of software commercially available and fail miserably in the process.
Copyright is NOT just about music and videos. It is NOT just about compensating artists for their work. It is a system that allows a creator to maintain control of their work and determine how it is used and distributed. There is really nothing unfair about this and even if we went back to the original 14 year copyright terms (no extensions) there would still be mass copyright infringement with people coming up with newer excuses as to why they simply want s**t for free and they will take it, damn the consequences, but they will try to take a creator's rights if they can to assuage their conscience some.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
downshiftdxJan 15, 2012
Well, I agree that much of the time the movie theater experience can be overrated, it is subjective. Many people enjoy going out rather than staying home. Also each live performance of a show or a concert is unique and no matter how high the fidelity of recording and reproduction you have at home, there is something missing if you are the type of person who enjoys going out to see your favorite artists or plays performed.
When I said artists in that case, I meant like sculptors, painters, photographers, etc... I probably should have been clearer, but the point stands. The digital versions of everything give up much of what experiencing art of all kinds requires - the physical interaction. Performance media like music should be performed if you are able and want to do so. But expecting in the world we live in to remain unchanged in the idea that you as a creator of something have the right to restrict anyone else from performing "your songs" is absurd to me. Once the information has been transmitted it can be copied in many forms and disseminated. The idea of control or rights to control is an illusion.
Authors can do signings, readings, question and answer sessions...the same things I see many authors do regularly at the independent bookstore on the property I work for. If they don't want to engage their readers in this way then it is their fault for not maximizing the value of their product, regardless if the books are free electronically or bought in hardcover or paperback.
Look to Blender for an example of open source doing pretty amazing things with producing real world products like books and training DVDs along with voluntary contributions by users, like me, who have chosen to give back with money when they found real value in it. There are also dozens of open source operating systems out there that most people have never heard of that are simply created for the fun of it or as experiments by their creators. I am not claiming they are usable for most people but there is innovation happening in programming same as artists and performers try to push the boundaries of their art. Open source is not just Linux, Gimp, Gnome, KDE, etc...
"Copyright is NOT just about music and videos. It is NOT just about compensating artists for their work. It is a system that allows a creator to maintain control of their work and determine how it is used and distributed. There is really nothing unfair about this..."
You expect me to accept, just because it is "the way it is" that we shouldn't update our understanding of what should be valuable or controllable by an artist and their works in a world where the ability to spread information is vastly outpacing any ability to prevent it? Why? Because of some antiquated notion of scarcity? That is the point - live performances, chances to meet favorite authors, standing in front of the real painting or sculpture in a museum in the best possible setting for it IS the truly scarce, and thus VALUABLE part of all of these things. What is unfair, is to blame technology's ability to copy information perfectly and practically endlessly for clashing with ideas of ownership and protections that are becoming obsolete.
What is going to happen when sculptures can be reproduced as they can now in limited ways through 3D printing at home? Sure it isn't the original and I didn't pay the original sculptor, nor is it likely to be the same material. But the basic information, like a compressed song vs a raw uncompressed track, is there. Are we going to get to the insane point of cracking down on people reproducing works with home printers for their own pleasure?
"...and even if we went back to the original 14 year copyright terms (no extensions) there would still be mass copyright infringement with people coming up with newer excuses as to why they simply want s**t for free and they will take it, damn the consequences, but they will try to take a creator's rights if they can to assuage their conscience some"
Everyone wants things for as cheap as possible or free if they can get it and once again, blaming the technology for enabling this and expecting people to not to take advantage of it is, from my perspective, the wrong approach. You can't "pirate" a live experience. You can't pirate actually talking for a moment or two with a favorite author, or getting backstage passes, or sitting inside an interactive art exhibition. You can't pirate going out to a movie theater, smelling and getting popcorn, and sitting down and conversing with friends and family before the previews start. (At least we can't do these things until we can copy and share memories... yikes.)
I don't blindly accept that copyright laws as we have them should continue to be followed just because we have up to now. I believe that if information is to be of any use it has to be transmitted. Any creator that transmits their work immediately looses control of it.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
What, i have stuff removed 1 to 3 times a month, it is required by law for the hosting company to shut down the service if copyrighted material is not removed. The only exception, if it is not hosted on US soil. NO law, SOPA or otherwise will help you then.
colecutJan 15, 2012
SOPA will allow the US to completely censor/blacklist any websites they want from US citizens, whether on US soil or not.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
Sopa may blacklist sites, have them removed from Goggle, etc.. but what about the rest of the world, this is where the most money is lost. Americans are a tiny fraction of pirating around the world, ever been on the streets in China, were you can buy movies on DVD before they even hit the theaters around the world.
SOPA will do nothing to stop this. Blacklisting will not stop pirating, underground networks have been in existence since the internet got popular, and will continue with or without this bill.
I am all for stopping pirates, just need to come up with a reasonable way to do it.
karmashockJan 15, 2012
I'm not normally a supporter of Obama... but I'm not so pig headed to take a win from him when he offers it.
Thanks Obama... truly and without irony... these bills needed to die.
wuggasladyJan 15, 2012Submitter
Veto, toss, repeat!
norman619Jan 15, 2012
Congress votes to overturn VETO done! A veto does not guarantee it will become a law. Not if congress REALLY wants to pass it.
wuggasladyJan 15, 2012Submitter
I'm not suggesting it would. It is, however, the constitutionally available option the President has.
wilke2000Jan 15, 2012
The president has another constitutional option: if ACTA is ratified as a treaty, it carries the full force of US law.
jsaintJan 15, 2012
Keep watching, this will come up until we vote out all the traitors that sell liberty to the highest bidder. Let's affirm the whole, "The people shouldn't fear the government, The government should fear the people." and berate the politicians with our displeasure more often on other topics too. We need lobbyist restrictions now and forensic accounting checks on elected officials. No more corporate sponsor supported shills.
johnnysoftwareJan 15, 2012
It's interesting, in fact very interesting, that the creator of the bill [predictably] had violating stuff on his own web site and CBS/Download.COM/ZDNet/CNET although they had a lot to say about the law, also violated it recently by putting malicious adware into Microsoft Windows versions of popular computer network security/analysis software programs.
If there was legitimate, even enforcement, the politicians and media giants could have had their web sites cut off from the Internet.
At this point, I don't think anyone doubts that the enforcement would have been anything but unfair or uneven.
We only have to look at rulings that took place weeks apart in the world. In one, a woman who had sold her computer and didn't have any router at home was found guilty of copyright infringement when someone used her account and their traffic was thus traced back to the account's IP address.
Yet in an identical case, the entertainment lobby group itself largely responsible for a lot of lawsuits was found innocent because when infringement traffic was tracked back to them via their IP address, they said oh yeah they must have been hacked.
It's the same crime, and the woman's claim of innocence seems a little more credible than theirs.
They had working equipment at their office obviously. Plus as an enterprise they have all kinds of countermeasures. Presumably, they are not enterprise administration buffoons
The woman, on the other hand was a retiree not a platoon of aggressive technically astute entrepreneurs with monitoring the Internet one of their major business activities.
SOPA is interesting because it shows how low firms like CBS, GoDaddy, a politician will sink in making/breaking the same laws, and how little old ladies -- literally -- are the ones they prey upon innocent or not.
The level of indifference for the Constitution or even doing unto others like you would have done unto you is pretty shocking.
cosmicsurferJan 15, 2012
Actually I trust this to be his position. With the hard press against SOPA/PIPA by the people, Obama has to say this. It may fall to whether or not he can keep his support by his major contributors...
That said, he has to regain the people and that is not an easy road right now (easier for him than the other fools trying to claim candidacy but that's not saying much)
barackalypseJan 15, 2012
Where exactly does it say the administration opposes the bills? There is some language in one paragraph in there about avoiding cyber-security risks and not tampering with the technical architecture, but I only see the bills named at the very beginning of the article and it never says the administration opposes them.
Regardless though, you may recall Obama opposed telcom immunity for warrantless wiretapping, and then voted for a bill that had telcom immunity in it anyway.
icwydJan 15, 2012
The young are so idealistic. It is so cute that it makes me want to puke.
peppermintpigJan 15, 2012
They think they know everything and that people who point out the ugly truth are de-facto supporters or causes of it.
barackalypseJan 15, 2012
And once again you put personal attacks where you should be placing evidence. Go find where it says "This administration does not support SOPA in its current form" and post it here and prove me wrong. I read the article and I see nowhere that it lists the administration's positions on the specific bills.
icwydJan 15, 2012
Let's see. Maybe it's politics? Conservatives are for this in very large numbers. You have to give and take don't you. Oh that's right you don't understand that. Conservatives are opposed to dealing and compromise. That's right.
I said, "The young are so idealistic. It is so cute that it makes me want to puke." Where does that attack you? Do you feel like it fits?
peppermintpigJan 15, 2012
"I said, "The young are so idealistic. It is so cute that it makes me want to puke." Where does that attack you? Do you feel like it fits?"
An assh**e would say something like that, but don't let yourself think that I'm attacking you. Some people get reality and some don't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydJan 15, 2012
I can only hope to be on par with the conservatives but alas 'tis unattainable for me!
icwydJan 15, 2012
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/veto-sopa-bill-and-any-other-future-bills-threaten-diminish-free-flow-information/g3W1BscR
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#/!/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet
-liberal assh**eComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydJan 15, 2012
Must be more conservative A*holes down voting the truth. Typical!
icwydJan 15, 2012
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/veto-sopa-bill-and-any-other-future-bills-threaten-diminish-free-flow-information/g3W1BscR
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#/!/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet
-liberal assh**eComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydJan 15, 2012
Must be more conservative A*holes down voting the truth. Typical!
justatoolJan 15, 2012
Let the paper get done already...
jonp63Jan 15, 2012
I can't stand Obama, but I may vote for him because of this.
anin_33Jan 15, 2012
*:-)
scoutmanthe1stJan 15, 2012
the white house may veto the bill, but there is the congress, in which most, if not all republicans will butt in and ratify the bill by 2/3rds of the votes.
Closed AccountJan 15, 2012
This is good news.
mercedrocksJan 15, 2012
Wow, first time Ive ever agreed with PoliticsUSA. Did hell freeze over?
saftypinsandpatchesJan 15, 2012
He's just saying it to get votes. And we now have 3 bills on the table; SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN. If those pass plus the NDAA that already did I think we are looking at America=Nazi Germany type regime. I know that sounds extreme but so are these bills. I mean the NDAAs thing about possible terrorists covers pretty much anyone in the country. (I seriously don't know anyone who doesn't have a weeks worth of food in their house, even college students have a weeks worth of Ramen and cup o soups.) :/
johnnysoftwareJan 15, 2012
This still leaves the issue of how to identify what copyrighted material is restricted and how, make it clear to viewers/users/distributors what that restriction is, and how to enforce those restrictions before or after the fact.
vipulbhojwaniJan 15, 2012
SOPA is absolutely ridiculous. Implementing SOPA will require the entire architecture of the Internet te be changed. We can not let a few representatives from the entertainment industry curb our internet freedom.
I hope somehow 41 sane senators will reject SOPA and stop all of this fuss
dauntless1Jan 15, 2012
f**king FINALLY!
pattigsonJan 15, 2012
nice
bille3Jan 14, 2012
Yeah and he promised to decriminalize medical marijuana too. Don't hold your breath on this one.
salbatrossJan 15, 2012
To be fair, promising to decriminalize marijuana and the White House actually withdrawing support for a bill under consideration are two very different levels of reality.
GeorgeTheDemocratJan 15, 2012
He is just stating the obvious, lie once, good chance of more lying. It ain't the only promise he broke.
4Herp2Derp0Jan 15, 2012
Obama never promised to do anything with marijuana so I really don't understand how he lied about it.
GeorgeTheDemocratJan 15, 2012
Every president in the last 45 years, (that i have been involved in politics), has lied, Some more than others, but they all do it. We have become a nation of political liars.
Wherther he promised to decriminalize medical marijuana i don't know, but he did promise a lot of things which never materialized.
particleman420Jan 15, 2012
how is he supposed to do that? the president isnt an emperor and cant just decree things into being.
jkaticJan 15, 2012
-he promised to decriminalize medical marijuana too
He never promised this, you are delusional.
david651Jan 15, 2012
:D
mattsharknickJan 15, 2012
i got the trojan when surfing here :(
http://blog.teesupport.com/bmc-win32-keylogger-gen-removal-manually-delete-bmc-win32-keylogger-gen/
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
Let me guess, he'll refuse to sign or support it till you slightly change the wording and then he'll sign it in Hawaii with a signing statement, ie: NDAA2012.
We are tired of you pulling our legs, Mr. ObamaComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 15, 2012
As I recall only 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted NAY to this bill. The blame of NDAA2012 rests on EVERY politician who aren't those 13 people. Don't blame JUST Obama.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Well, there is another perspective to this. There were two or three attempts to remove this part of the bill. The opposition to just that portion was much higher - about 45%, largely along party lines. So it's possible that if he vetoed the bill, and explicitly said why he was vetoing it, he could have gotten his way. It's possible that Obama just didn't want to expend political capital at this point.
mlw4428Jan 15, 2012
It doesn't really matter. This is not JUST an Obama problem, as I said. That implies that Obama made a mistake, but it also states that his mistake is no different than the rest of our Legislative branch save for 13 people.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Agreed - it's not just his problem. Although I think Obama sees this far more clearly than the idiots in congress, since he is a constitutional lawyer and put in a signing statement specifically to reject this part of the bill.
Perhaps he plans to overturn it once he has some time and the leverage he needs.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
If he is, as you say, a constitutional lawyer, then he knows that a signing statement is a refusal to enforce the law as written. "I don't agree with the law, so i am not going to enforce it". This in its self is unconstitutional. If he does not agree with it, he could have vetoed it (the proper thing to do), or signed it and sued to let the supreme court decide. At any time he can refute or disobey his signing statement to adhere to the law as written because he is NOT bound by it.
What is a person who is above the law?
A King! All hail King Obama!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 15, 2012
@FrankLuska
Before you run your mouth you should do some basic research. Presidents have been doing this since the James Monroe was President (a Founding Father). "King Obama" is no more different that "King Bush" or "King Regan" (oh shi...did I insult your "GREATEST PRESIDENT EVARRR"?). Oh that's right, "King Regan" popularized the signing statements for modern day Presidents as did Bush Sr.
The Supreme Court has never fully challenged signing statements and thus you have no right to claim whether or not it is is unconstitutional. I would imagine that since it's been going on since our 5th President that it has SOME legal precedence as, again, it's not really ever been challenged.
But f**king dips**ts like yourself will attack Obama over the same s**t that literally EVERY OTHER President has done since the 5th one. But go ahead, don't let FACTS stop your "moral outrage."
Do me a favor, just don't vote. You're not educated enough and you clearly cannot be educated to the proper level. God you're idiot.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
@mlw4428,
So, just because something has never been challenged, it is constitutional? God your Idiot.
""King Obama" is no more different that "King Bush" or "King Regan""
never said they weren't, as a matter of fact, Bush and Regan are worse than Obama, so far.
My problem is with Kings period.
Try as you may, bring your partisan bulls**t into it, but since i don't support any party, your arguments are moot. Support whatever freaking king you want, i don't.
Now that you have shown to be an irrelevant idiot, thinking i support the opposite King from the one in current power, do you feel any better, knowing that you just screwed yourself by thinking someone must be for one side or the other?
Your need to take mind reading 101 over again, you completely failed, and next time, just ask, it will keep you from looking so f**king stupid.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
If i did want to JUST blame Obama, i would have, but i didn't.
mlw4428Jan 15, 2012
I want to post this here JUST so I can make sure you get this.
@FrankLuska
Before you run your mouth you should do some basic research. Presidents have been doing this since the James Monroe was President (a Founding Father). "King Obama" is no more different that "King Bush" or "King Regan" (oh shi...did I insult your "GREATEST PRESIDENT EVARRR"?). Oh that's right, "King Regan" popularized the signing statements for modern day Presidents as did Bush Sr.
The Supreme Court has never fully challenged signing statements and thus you have no right to claim whether or not it is is unconstitutional. I would imagine that since it's been going on since our 5th President that it has SOME legal precedence as, again, it's not really ever been challenged.
But f**king dips**ts like yourself will attack Obama over the same s**t that literally EVERY OTHER President has done since the 5th one. But go ahead, don't let FACTS stop your "moral outrage."
Do me a favor, just don't vote. You're not educated enough and you clearly cannot be educated to the proper level. God you're idiot.
---
Now you have no excuse and in the future will not use the "Oh, Oh, OBAMA DID IT" BS you usually do. I know facts are difficult to hear, but sometimes the stupid need to be slapped in the face with some cold, hard, facts. That anger you feel, that's called shame and you're feeling it because you're ashamed of being such a dumbass.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
@mlw4428,
I want to post this here JUST so I can make sure you get this. To show you how stupid you and others like you are for not finding out the facts before you go off on your partisan rant.
"The Supreme Court has never fully challenged signing statements"
So what your trying to say, is no One has ever challenged signing statements? Learn how to make a statement properly, god your an idiot.
"But f**king dips**ts like yourself will attack Obama over the same s**t that literally EVERY OTHER President has done since the 5th one. But go ahead, don't let FACTS stop your "moral outrage.""
Obama, Bush, Your buddy and favorite president Regan, Carter, any of them that have done this. Dips**t is your middle name?
"Do me a favor, just don't vote. You're not educated enough and you clearly cannot be educated to the proper level. God you're idiot."
Do me a favor and vote for your king of choice, you appear to be brainwashed to only vote along party lines, to do as your party ask of it, just like a good little Nazi.
So, just because something has never been challenged, it is constitutional? God your Idiot.
""King Obama" is no more different that "King Bush" or "King Regan""
never said they weren't, as a matter of fact, Bush and Regan are worse than Obama, so far.
My problem is with Kings period.
Try as you may, bring your partisan bulls**t into it, but since i don't support any party, your arguments are moot. Support whatever freaking king you want, i don't.
Now that you have shown to be an irrelevant idiot, thinking i support the opposite King from the one in current power, do you feel any better, knowing that you just screwed yourself by thinking someone must be for one side or the other?
Your need to take mind reading 101 over again, you completely failed, and next time, just ask, it will keep you from looking so f**king stupid.
"Now you have no excuse and in the future will not use the "Oh, Oh, OBAMA DID IT" BS you usually do. I know facts are difficult to hear, but sometimes the stupid need to be slapped in the face with some cold, hard, facts. That anger you feel, that's called shame and you're feeling it because you're ashamed of being such a dumbass."
Now you have no excuse for being a dumbass, thinking i give a holy s**t about the republicans, or democrats, or any other freaking party, this makes your stupidity shine through,
Any i really like your childish bully swearing, makes you look really smart. damn this fun arguing with little partisan children.
Any other stupid comments you want to make,?
mlw4428Jan 15, 2012
"So what your trying to say, is no One has ever challenged signing statements? Learn how to make a statement properly, god your an idiot."
No, I said that the Supreme Court has never fully challenged the Constitutionality of a signing statement. Learn to read.
"So, just because something has never been challenged, it is constitutional? God your Idiot."
Yeah, that's sort of how our laws and government work. You can't just MAGICALLY declare something to be unconstitutional. That's why there's a Judicial body...it's part of that balance thing. Legislative writes laws, Judicial reviews, and Executive enforces (very basic overview...but for you I need to go "durrr" basic).
"My problem is with Kings period."
You really need to stop using words in the incorrect context. Kings refer to a Monarchy...perhaps you should study up on that further. You can impeach Obama and he gets removed from his office, one way or another, after 8 years. That's like no Monarchy that has ever been in existence.
"Do me a favor and vote for your king of choice, you appear to be brainwashed to only vote along party lines, to do as your party ask of it, just like a good little Nazi."
Ah the Nazi comment...the crutch of the retarded. At this point there's no sense to continue trying to show you how wrong you are. You're far too stupid to see it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
You do know just because the constitution does not say something is illegal, it's not legal, right?
To think everything could be included or excluded from the constitution is very arrogant.
You started the name calling, king is term of someone who controls others, dips**t, dumbass, idiot all came from you, and REMEMBER, those are the crutch of the retarded.
Glad you see that you started the argument with your childish name calling, could have been an adult, asked what i meant, but no, the child in you shined through and you went on a tear.
Argue with you later, hopefully on an adult level.
mlw4428Jan 15, 2012
"You do know just because the constitution does not say something is illegal, it's not legal, right?"
No actually if there is no law written against an action then it cannot be illegal. Legal precedences are often used as a defacto law, but it often requires a higher court ruling for that to have much effect.
"king is term of someone who controls others"
A king is the ruling head of a Monarchy. You're trying to use a VERY broad and incorrect definition to suite your goals. I'm sorry if educated people won't agree with you. Ever.
"You started the name calling"
No actually, you did
""What is a person who is above the law?
A King! All hail King Obama!""
You've attacked Obama repeatedly on things that you're just plain wrong on. I don't care if you don't like the man, but you should REALLY do some research before running your mouth. For someone who claims to not be a Republican you sure seem to hold most of their ideals.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
So calling someone a King is "name calling", not stating a fact or opinion?
If i called Bush a King? would this be opinion, fact or name calling in your eyes.
No president so far has been more of a King than GWB, but in my humble opinion, (i am entitled to that, right), Obama is running a close second.
I am an independent, i hate or like all people equally, which means, if you lie, deceive, cheat, do things such as start false wars, or lie and say your going to veto something and then sign it, make promises you do not keep, or even worse, know that you will not or can not keep, your no better than any other.
If Bush were still president, he would be getting it much worse, much more than i have ever said about Obama.
endgameJan 15, 2012
Obama could have vetoed it.
jhw539Jan 15, 2012
"As I recall only 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted NAY to this bill. "
In the Senate. In the House, 93 Democrats and 43 Republicans voted NAY to NADA 2012.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
"If he is, as you say, a constitutional lawyer, then he knows that a signing statement is a refusal to enforce the law as written."
Well, wait. That's not exactly what is happening here.
First of all, the law does not require him to use this provision. It just gives him the power.
Second, his signing statement is not a refusal of the law. It is more in the way of a comment that states that he is concerned about it, and that he will apply and interpret it so as to not go against the constitution:
"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations."
Third, the supreme court has not clearly ruled on the signing statements. They have been around for centuries, and are primarily used to interpret the law and explicitly state the interpretation.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
Presidents that have used a singing statement, have used it to refuse to enforce certain parts the law. Most notably, Bush.
If i buy your argument that Obama "will apply and interpret it so as to not go against the constitution:" (that being a good thing, no shooting or detaining of innocent civilians), what's to prevent future presidents from doing so. Any constitutional lawyer would know this might be used in an unfavorable way (Bush for instance), and would have surely vetoed it, right?
"They have been around for centuries, and are primarily used to interpret the law and explicitly state the interpretation."
Which in turn means they do not agree with the law as written (there would be no need for one if they agreed), and will not enforce something they don't believe.
Of course going back to what the above article is all about, Obama say he does not agree with SOPA, and will not support it. Does not say he won't sign it. Just as with NDAA2012, he threatened to veto it, but later signed it when ultimate control was given to local law enforcement. Will he sign SOPA if a few words are changed? What will be changed, will people still be arrested and prosecuted for unknowingly posting a link to copyrighted material.
All this kind of crap is going too far, and Obama is not working on the side of the people in this country when he does things like this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
"Presidents that have used a singing statement, have used it to refuse to enforce certain parts the law."
I am not saying that signing statements are a good thing, or that Obama's statement provides a good precedent. Just that it's not an indication of his dictatorship as you implied.
"Any constitutional lawyer would know this might be used in an unfavorable way (Bush for instance), and would have surely vetoed it, right?"
Agreed, but as I said, my guess is that he may be planning to leave that battle for later.
"Which in turn means they do not agree with the law as written (there would be no need for one if they agreed), and will not enforce something they don't believe. "
No. It means that they want to clarify or focus the interpretation of the law. A law can be vague or broadly written. The signing statements can be used to focus on a specific interpretation of the law.
"What will be changed, will people still be arrested and prosecuted for unknowingly posting a link to copyrighted material."
No idea. Let's see what happens.
"All this kind of crap is going too far, and Obama is not working on the side of the people in this country when he does things like this."
I think you are jumping the gun in the case of SOPA and PIPA. These laws have not been proposed or signed yet. We don't know whether they will pass or what sort of changes will be added to them. It's too early to tell.
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
"No. It means that they want to clarify or focus the interpretation of the law. A law can be vague or broadly written. The signing statements can be used to focus on a specific interpretation of the law.
If a law is vague, it does leave it open interpretation, this would be my biggest problem. In such an instance, would it not be wise to send it back to congress and make them get off their butt and do it right. :-)
I know every instance can not be thought of or incorporated into every bill, but they do seem to purposely leave a lot of laws vague, in which the president must interpret, he has enough to do already and i think him deciding law and then having to enforce it absolves congress of their liabilities.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
"If a law is vague, it does leave it open interpretation, this would be my biggest problem. In such an instance, would it not be wise to send it back to congress and make them get off their butt and do it right. :-)"
Agreed - in most cases. In some situations that sort of thing would require expenditure of political capital. Capital that could be used for other things. It takes time and effort to get congress to do anything. I am guessing that this is the case of Obama picking his battles.
But in general, the whole question of signing statements is really vague and undefined. It even goes farther than that - the idea of riders attached to various bills is also strange. Because that's what the detention law was - a rider to the existing bill for appropriations. You can slap all sorts of bills to other bills and push them through. Without a signing statement the president can then either reject the entire bill or approve it.
IMHO what should be added is something like a signing veto - possibly backed by the judicial branch. If the attorney general and the president both disagree with a rider to the bill, they should be able to veto it. Then if the majority of congress wants that to pass, they can try to get a supermajority. On the other hand I am sure this sort of change to the constitution would have enormous legal implications I have not thought of, and is not at all likely to pass any time soon. Maybe it can be a supreme court decision that justifies special types of signing statements.
barackalypseJan 15, 2012
Meanwhile:
"President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today. "
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027800-281.html?tag=topTechContentWrap;editorPicks
Oh, but hey, no need to worry any, some liberal blog says the Administration is against censorship.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jkaticJan 15, 2012
An optional ID for transactions and such to be managed by private companies which was proposed almost a year and went nowhere is not 'an Internet ID for Americans'.
letherialJan 15, 2012
Ironically...his administration enforced this law before it was even introduced.
Ahh politics
ka5p3rJan 15, 2012
so you do have some intelligent people in the Obama administration.
nolagrlJan 15, 2012
get out the veto pen!
huubvanoverveldJan 15, 2012
See truth happens :)
endgameJan 15, 2012
Obama: Have it known I dont like this bill but I will be signing it anyway.... /Typical
kutepiJan 15, 2012
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_top_5_reasons_obama_must_be_removed_as_commander-in-chief.html#ixzz1jX951QJr
Favor
GizmotrakerJan 15, 2012
sick people !
RickyRetardoAchaJan 15, 2012
maybe we're not living in a fascist state after all...
Closed AccountJan 15, 2012
political war always on
CrescentSkies_2Jan 15, 2012
Obama finally said what he was going to do before he did it? For once? Finally? He's not just repeating the word change over and over again and people are lapping it up?
I think I just had a heart attack for each question mark.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Jan 15, 2012
we should be so lucky.
promethean93Jan 15, 2012
Obama is a traitor. He signed the NDAA and sold us out lock stock and barrel and now he's trying this publicity stunt.
skyislandJan 15, 2012
Barack is not a traitor. But Please Mr President; The fancy pens and legalistic wording doesn't get around the fact that without words to protect the internet by declaration of internet as telecommunications, technology necessary for guaranteeing continuation of the right to assemble and of free speech and privacy, of net neutrality, the manipulators of corporate greed and their script writers will drive a stake into our democracy.
Please do not take our internet away Mr President. This is no understatement because if you compromise, you compromise with the devil and the devil is set to have a field day with the planet heating up and all and a round robin corporate lobbyist, politician food chain..
Please stand for the people and for freedom. Please do everything possible to get political change going so government stands for the common good and the people, all the people Government should serve..
We the People, all the people.. This isn't even our planet we are so callously destroying.. Please Mr Pres step back from what the lobbyists are saying..
Listen to the trees in the forest as I wished others to do before COP13 in Bali..
When a man lived in Papua who spoke out and told his story, a story of hope.
A man gone from history.. Blacked out now like never existed on line and no way to follow or to go and find out.. The peoples of the forest, the forests are dying..
Please Mr President Obama this was, is in a country where you grew up as a boy.. The forests are the same everywhere and the sound of the wind in the trees.. Please Mr President don't compromise with the devil of corporate greed.
crashdvisJan 15, 2012
auto-buried for politicsusa spam.
theswashbucklerJan 15, 2012
auto-buried for conservative spam
particleman420Jan 15, 2012
do you ever say anything besides that?
SophiaPuffJan 15, 2012
Yeah sure... that is until its New Years Eve and time to sign the bill. Then he will sign it and write "signed despite my personal disagreement"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.