He’s not going to overturn passed and chaptered laws. He will, however, once again begin to enforce the laws Bush selectively “overrode” and can rescind executive orders at whim. 13233 would be a good place to start.

Also, Congress & Obama have to look into the Insurrection laws Bush managed to pass that take away control of militias from governors without their permission.

Never mistake the lazy writing of a journalist for the actual words of a person–Obama is well aware of the separation of powers as a (part-time) instructor of constitutional law (it is technically inaccurate to call him a professor)

His quote is very specific–executive orders–he does not claim to have the authority to retroactively veto congressional legislation.

Frankly, you both have a lot of nerve calling Obama on this when you let Bush skate on his proven abuse of the separation of powers.

Bush has significantly ignored that separation with 157 signing statements that challenged more than 1100 provisions of the laws passed by congress (AND THIS IS A LARGELY FRIENDLY CONGRESS!)

If you want to take Obama to task for a lazy journalists interpretation, where are your criticisms of these signing statements of Bush?

The fact remains that Bush used signing statements and executive decisions to create defacto laws that may prove to be unconstitutional. I think it’s pretty clear that’s what he’s saying here.

And by the way Jimmy, you could say the same thing about Bush given how often he used the signing statements. At least Obama was a constitutional law professor.

He can overturn executive decisions, but isn’t overturning laws (as passed by Congress) out of the Presidential bailiwick, and wouldn’t it constitute EXACTLY the same thing he claims Bush was doing? Usurping Congressional functions?

Well, heck, it’s all about the base-rousing at this point anyway.