Obama Will Continue Signing Statements; Calls for Review of His Predecessor's

Great...

Obama slings more hash than a short order cook.

The University of Chicago decided to call Obama a "professor" as a courtesy. He definitely was NOT a professor. He was only considered a professor during his presidential campaign.

I'm tired of Obama's phony credentials. Where's his birth certificate?

Interesting that the Supreme Court has managed to abrogate their responsibilities related to the Constitution and hand over the reins to the legislative and executive branches.

They wanted judicial review so badly once upon a time, and now they seem content with playing the role of simply being the highest body for resolving routine litigation.

"Since Obama did not do anything other than lecture, I do not consider his position to have been that of a professor."

The important thing is that being called a professor carries more import and gravitas on one's cv than being called a mere lecturer. Obama would never have been elected if he was only referred to as a mere guest lecturer.

Obama...a professor? Certainly, you jest. Axelrod writes his speeches.
Obama delivers them via teleprompters
to a breathless audience. The news-mouths proclaim him an obvious genius
even as they point out how asinine
his proposals are.....but will chew
off the head of Limbaugh who points
up the obvious....there's no THERE, there.

Just to put my academic two cents into the discussion of the distinction between professor and lecturer: As an academic, I am familiar with the fact that professor is often used as a catch-all term for anyone who teaches on the college level. And Chicago's law school has an odd, to my mind, interpretation of the term. They contend that Obama was "regarded as" a professor, "although not full-time or tenure track," even though his official title was 'senior lecturer.' The distinction between a lecturer and a professor, one that the law school seems to have followed in practice if not in terminology, is that lecturers, not being tenure track, are not required to do academic research to retain their positions. Because they are hired only to teach, lecturers traditionally maintain a higher teaching load than professors, who, in addition to teaching, also engage in research, committee work, and student advisement.

Since Obama did not do anything other than lecture, I do not consider his position to have been that of a professor. That is not a put-down-- many of the most gifted teachers I know are lecturers and many professors are terrible in the classroom but talented in other ways. For the record, I think teaching is the most important thing a professor does and that it is a shame there is not more emphasis on teaching skills in determinations of tenure and promotion.

Please clarify, I'm unclear on this:

Does the US Constitution not place the responsibility to determine constitutionality (sic) of legislation firmly in the hands of the judiciary? Was this assignment to the Judicial branch not precisely to avoid the Executive drawing too much power unto itself (thereby protecting the people)?

Why then has this idea, of Presidents deciding the issue as it conveniences their particular agenda, not been challenged?

Darryl,

That function can only be done by a Court, not the Justice department. You will have to find a reason to file suit in every case and wait a decade or two for it to get to the Supremes.

Come to think of it, that might be a good use of the president's time.

The Justice Department.

They have the charter to true up any inconsistencies as well as the authority to return to Congress and/or Executive branch for corrective language and/or execution of the original law.

jhw, thank you.

Every Singing statement issued by Bush should be analyzed for the net effect/change it had to the INTENT of the law that it is attached to as well as any residual effect(s) that were not intended.

~~~~~

Who exactly would you have do that, and under what authority?

Every Singing statement issued by Bush should be analyzed for the net effect/change it had to the INTENT of the law that it is attached to as well as any residual effect(s) that were not intended.
This is one of the larger subversion's of our Constitutional system that Bush literally got away with, doing away with the checks and balance from the three branches of government.
More interestingly, why would he feel the need to issue these singing statements when his party controlled both the House & Senate for 6 of the 8 years he was issuing them??
Makes you wonder who he was working for.

Obama's reputation at Chicago was of being lazy. While others wrote volumes to shore up their positions, Obama wrote nothing. It's not terribly hard to teach 3 classes a week particularly in law school. And Con law is one of the easiest subjects to teach. And it is certainly not a skill that transfers to anything else. Whether he was a lecturer or a professor doesn't change his stature (or lack thereof) in any meaningful way.

mad:"jhw: I'm curious as to your statement that if one used a tight definition he was a lecturer rather than a professor."

If you defined it by the title placed before his name in the student directory. (The same title given the associate dean at one point...). Or if you defined it only as a fully tenured professor, excluding associate professors and such. I don't know many universities who use that definition, but maybe some of the departments famous for not tenuring many of their associates would (roundly hated in the field - it's like flunking out most of your freshmen indicates a problem with the school admissions).

As I said, professor is not a legally protected title. The common practice amongst my over-educated professional student/professor group of friends is that the authority that defines it is the employer and the employer also has to be an accredited institution.

jhw: I'm curious as to your statement that if one used a tight definition he was a lecturer rather than a professor.

According to the university he taught at, he was a professor.
---------------------------------------
My apologies. If that is the standard then, then he is.

"The occasional statement is not a real problem, but Bush used them as a substitute for the veto in many cases."

I prefer rare vs occasional.

The signing statement is a modern Presidency thing.

"As a senior lecturer, he never published any legal scholarship. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say his academic credentials are not in dispute."

According to the university he taught at, he was a professor.

The rest is right wing noise.

hmn..."So the Constitutional scholar is voting to continue Unconstitutional policies from the last administration"

Properly applied, they have not been found unconstitutional. Bush applied them incredibly broadly and issued two or three times as many as every prior president *combined* (they've been increasing in use since Reagan ramped them up, but Bush went crazy).

The occasional statement is not a real problem, but Bush used them as a substitute for the veto in many cases.