# President Obama's signing statement. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228 "2009-03-12T17:57:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/41 "2009-03-13T14:01:01Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > What? > As a professor he taught constitutional law. No, he didn’t. He taught constitutional law (for freshmen law students, IIRC) for a brief period as an INSTRUCTOR and NOT as a PROFESSOR. He has knowledge of consitutional law, definitely. But, he’s no expert. He hasn’t done ANY significant thing as a lawyer. He’s an unpublished editor (very unusual) and he’s won NO significant cases. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/42 "2009-03-13T14:04:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you think it is constitutional for Congress to direct the president to engage in negotiations with another country on a particular subject? Obama and Bush seem to agree that that would be an unconstitutional law. Given the Constitution’s placing foreign policy in the hands of the Executive, it looks that way to me too. But that’s a side point, and one the Supremes would have to decide if the other two branches couldn’t work it out. The checks-‘n’-balances system, and the inevitable tensions that it causes, and their resolution, is healthy for democracy IMHO. The declaration of the newly-found existence of ambiguities, or the invention of arrant bullshit like the “unitary executive” theory Bush so loved, is not quite so healthy. > [@Sinaijon](#): > > How is this not ‘unitary executive nonsense’? By not having any basis, stated or otherwise, in a claim to virtually-absolute executive power in the cause of national defense. Haven’t you come across the “theory” before? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/43 "2009-03-13T14:08:04Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > an INSTRUCTOR and NOT as a PROFESSOR. He has knowledge of consitutional law, definitely. But, he’s no expert. How knowledgeable about a subject does one have to be to teach it at the U. of Chi Law School? Are their hiring standards all that low? > [@](#): > > He hasn’t done ANY significant thing as a lawyer. He’s an unpublished editor (very unusual) and he’s won NO significant cases. Even if true, what difference does that make? ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/44 "2009-03-13T14:23:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How knowledgeable about a subject does one have to be to teach it at the U. of Chi Law School? Are their hiring standards all that low? > > Even if true, what difference does that make? I was responding to a post that cites Obama’s competence in the field of constitutional law as a reason for him being a better judge of when to use signing statements. I responded that his competence in the field is NOT demonstrable and that Bush’s legal advisers would be more competent than he is. I then elaborated that he is NOT a Professor of Law as most Obama supporters claim to support their view that he is uber-intelligent and that he is an UNPUBLISHED Editor for the Harvard Law Review. His achievements as a legal practicioner cannot be used to support the contention that he is intelligent because he has NO ACHIEVEMENT in the field. For that matter, his achievements as a community organizer and state legislator CANNOT be used in this manner as well. He doesn’t have ANY ACHIEVEMENTS in the field beyond those that was gifted to him. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/45 "2009-03-13T14:28:58Z")
If you KEEP pressing **Anduril** s/he will EXPLODE in a fury of pent up primary RAGE. As much as I would like to SEE that, it’s a bit of a HIJACK. I’m pretty sure we can all agree that neither Bush nor Obama is sitting in the Oval Office doing legal research. They are given opinions drafted by their legal advisers, who are generally of high quality. John Yoo, for all his faults, was a Supreme Court clerk (though, according to Anduril, Yoo’s lack of important cases means we don’t know if he’s a smart lawyer). I imagine we can also agree that the President makes the final decision on the matter, and the one who was the leader of the Harvard Law Review is making more informed decisions than the one with the business degree. ---
**Author:** ![Piker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@Piker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Piker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/46 "2009-03-13T14:37:45Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > No, he didn’t. He taught constitutional law (for freshmen law students, IIRC) for a brief period as an INSTRUCTOR and NOT as a PROFESSOR. He has knowledge of consitutional law, definitely. But, he’s no expert. He hasn’t done ANY significant thing as a lawyer. He’s an unpublished editor (very unusual) and he’s won NO significant cases. Your use of “freshman” to refer to 1L law students indicates that you know pretty little about the legal academy. He taught constitutional law at the University of friggin’ Chicago. One of the toughest subjects at one of the most renowned law schools in the country. It takes a certain type of ignorance to think that doesn’t make one an expert in constitutional law. -Piker ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/47 "2009-03-13T14:40:02Z")
_sigh_[So it goes . . .](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455418) > [@](#): > > Yet even if the victor of the 2008 presidential eleciton declines to make use of the aggrandized executive power established by the Bush-Cheney administration, in the long run such forbearance might make little difference. The accretion of presidential power, history has shown, often acts like a one-way rachet: It can be increased far more easily than it can be reduced. The annals of American history are now filled with precedents in which the White House has claimed the power to bypass laws and then acted upon that claim, especially in matters of national security. The zone of secrecy surrounding the executive branch has been dramatically widened. The Supreme Court has been sharply tilted [by Roberts and Alito, who had pro-Unitary-Executive records before their appointment, as discussed in earlier chapters] toward a sympathetic view of executive power, and the White House’s political control of the permanent government [the professional career bureaucracy] has been dramatically expanded. The federal statute books are now riddled with asterisks, thanks to the explosive growth of signing statements, which have made it clear that a president can routinely sign legislation while declaring himself free to ignore sections that restrain his own powers – a dramatic change that has the potential to take away from Congress its constitutional right to override a president’s decision to reject a new law. > > The expansive presidential powers claimed and exercised by the Bush-Cheney White House are now an immutable part of American history – not controversies, but facts. The importance of such precedents is difficult to overstate. As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson once warned, any new claim of executive power, once validated into precedent, “lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes.” > > Sooner or later, there will always be another urgent need. – Charlie Savage in [_Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy_](http://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Imperial-Presidency-Subversion-Democracy/dp/0316118044) The Obama Administration still has a chance to distinguish itself from W’s in this regard by not dragging its heels over any potential court challenge. Let the Supreme Court clearly define the outer limits of what can and can’t be done by signing statements – at present a highly indeterminate question, and one the Bush Admin was at pains to keep from ever coming before the Court. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/48 "2009-03-13T14:41:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > John Yoo, for all his faults, was a Supreme Court clerk (though, according to Anduril, Yoo’s lack of important cases and publications means we don’t know if he’s a smart lawyer). If you will evaluate John Yoo’s competence on the basis of the cases he’s handled and he’s won NOTHING, then he’s not that smart, isn’t he? But he’s also a Supreme Court clerk, which argues for a lot of competence. Can we say anything similar about Obama?? Of course, not. > [@](#): > > I imagine we can also agree that the President makes the final decision on the matter, and the one who was the leader of the Harvard Law Review is making more informed decisions than the one with the business degree You’re absolutely right. But how likely would it be that the one with the business degree would argue against a trusted legal adviser on questions of law? Unless the legal advisers can’t be trusted then the fact that the President is the leader of the Harvard Law Review is not germane. The legal advisers would have demonstrable competence in the field - something that Obama lacks. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/49 "2009-03-13T14:42:52Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > Your use of “freshman” to refer to 1L law students indicates that you know pretty little about the legal academy. He taught constitutional law at the University of friggin’ Chicago. One of the toughest subjects at one of the most renowned law schools in the country. It takes a certain type of ignorance to think that doesn’t make one an expert in constitutional law. > > -Piker IT takes a certain class of fanboyism to call that expertise. He is a friggin lecturer for crying out loud. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/50 "2009-03-13T14:48:45Z")
Let’s not make too much of this particular point. It is true that Bush relied on lawyers in the White House and Justice Department to determine when signing statements would be appropriate - and lookie here, Barack Obama is similarly relying on expertise there as well. See the first paragraph of the statement I quoted in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/51 "2009-03-13T14:51:34Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > IT takes a certain class of fanboyism to call that expertise. He is a friggin lecturer for crying out loud. Actually, those **are** considered the experts in Con-Law, more so than lawyers who actually argue constitutional issues before the SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/52 "2009-03-13T15:06:17Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > No, he didn’t. He taught constitutional law (for freshmen law students, IIRC) for a brief period as an INSTRUCTOR and NOT as a PROFESSOR. So many things are wrong with your statements. Let’s start at the beginning. Someone who teaches his own class of students, especially in a graduate program, is their professor. Furthermore, your claim is simply wrong. And not just wrong, but egregiously wrong in several particulars. He was a professor, and calling 12 years a “brief” period is wonky. [ > [@](#): > > The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. ]([http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html)) Second, what’s your point in dropping a red herring? Whether or not he taught first year students is immaterial to the question of whether or not he had the ability to teach his subject to law students. What, you think that the profs who take first year classes aren’t as competent as those who teach third year? > [@Anduril](#): > > He hasn’t done ANY significant thing as a lawyer. Put the goalposts down and back away slowly. You can’t just switch, in mid argument, from a claim that he doesn’t have expertise to one that he hasn’t put that expertise into practice. And, of course, the University of Chicago would disagree with your claim that their professors aren’t experts. [ > [@](#): > > The Law School is happy to work with the media to provide access to our faculty members, who are experts on myriad subjects ]([http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html)) ---
**Author:** ![Piker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@Piker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Piker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/53 "2009-03-13T15:10:13Z")
This false equalization by conservatives was predictable, and is counterproductive. This is the timeline of the presidential signing statements issue: 1. The first 200-some odd years of our history, where presidents often use signing statements to comment on policy or reserve the powers of the Presidency on non-controversial issues. Reagan AG Meese eventually gets Westlaw and Lexis to publish signing statements as part of a Public Law’s legislative history. No one notices. 2. The Bush Administration begins to flex their signing statement muscle, using the procedure to make reservations about presidential power that are quite controversial and in ways to avoid taking political hits for these controversial stances. For example: Congress finally passes the McCain Amendment (in the DTA), committing our country to the off-the-wall notion that we will not torture prisoners of war. Bush holds a press conference and invites all the key sponsors of the bill to the oval office for a signing party. The media documents Bush’s signing the bill into law. He scores political points. A couple days later, the world finds out about the Bush signing statement, that not only reserved controversial and unsettled presidential powers, but completely eviscerated the bill that he just signed and took some of the credit for. Political duplicity. 1. Liberals (defined as people who are against torture, i.e. the Western World) hear this and say “Hey! The President can’t sign a law and use a signing statement to make an end-around the will of Congress!” 2. Apparatchiks for the Administration respond “You’re against _signing statements_? Why, _Jefferson_ used signing statements! Silly librals!” 3. Same people lie in wait, anticipating the first ho-hum, run-of-the-mill signing statement by the next Democratic President, ready to accuse liberals of hypocrisy after having moved the goalpost so far that they seem to forgot what the actual issue with Bush’s signing statements was. 4. President Obama signs the aforementioned bill with an accompanying signing statement. The statement makes the uncontroversial claims that Congress cannot control in dictating how to proceed in negotiations with foreign governments, and that any inclusion of a legislative veto is unconstitutional. This latter point has been clear since Chadha defended the suspension of his deportation in the Supreme Court _twenty-five years_ ago. **Anduril** will be happy to hear that this case is so central to any course of constitutional law that I read it in my first month of being a “freshman” in law school. 5. This thread is posted, and the Hate Obama First folks “pounce” on this “opportunity” to “embarrass” the Administration. Of course, this situation is so different from why signing statements were controversial in the first place that the thread unravels into a mess of hijacks that include whether the Editor of the Harvard Law Review and lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago knows anything about the Constitution. It doesn’t matter though, because just creating the thread and sparking a debate about this issue, no matter how ridiculous, creates the appearance of false equalization. Mission accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![Piker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@Piker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Piker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/54 "2009-03-13T15:13:03Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > IT takes a certain class of fanboyism to call that expertise. He is a friggin lecturer for crying out loud. I don’t understand your perjoritive use of “lecturer”. He _lectured_, on the Constitution, probably for about two hours at a time, for a dozen years, to students who paid big bucks and took out big loans to hear those lectures. It takes a certain class of willful ignorance to not call that expertise. -Piker ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/55 "2009-03-13T15:17:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure, no problem. All that you need to do is provide a cite from before the 2000 elections where Bush said he would not use signing statements, and I will condemn him for breaking that promise just as I have done for Obama. "“The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation,” Obama answered. But, he added: \*\*“No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives.” \*\* [Cite](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html). Now, if the entirety of your point was that you think Obama lied at one rally by not expanding on his view of the proper use of signing statements as he did elsewhere, have at it. But if you want to be a big boy and debate the actual issues in the OP, let me know. > [@Shodan](#): > > Interesting that you do not choose to take what you characterize as a [“well-deserved potshot”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7361649&postcount=20) at the current President for using signing statements, nor do you automatically assume that signing statements are [good indications of his intent to violate the law](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7362093&postcount=35). Read them again. The “well deserved potshot” was not over, as you falsely state, Bush’s use of all signing statements, but Bush’s signing statement about torture, and his view of judicial enforcement. It should have been fairly obvious, because in the very same post, I linked to two separate discussions of the proper and improper use of signing statements. And by obvious I mean to anyone objective. And in your second link, I made no such assumption, and I even provided the exact issue I had. Although in almost every thread I deal with you, I ask this, I’ll still do it again: stop misrepresenting my posts. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/56 "2009-03-13T15:23:55Z")
Piker, why is the issue different under Obama? What makes these observations “uncontroversial” to you? They certainly are to the legislators who disagreed. Bush either had the right to use a signing statement for the torture legislation, or he didn’t. The very exercise is one that means the president, as Obama does, indicates he will carry out the law \*this far \*and no further. What makes something a controversial, end-run evisceration other than personal opinion, if it’s appropriate in some situations but not others? Hamlet, I’d pose the same question to you (or to the president, were he here). What besides ideology and personal opinion render Bush’s use of this practice beyond the pale, while Obama’s is A-okay? Why can’t Obama’s statments be interpreted as changing the intention of the legislators? Serious question, because the nuance is lost on me, honestly. ETA: Can we concede Obama is an expert? What’s the difference? Why does that matter in this debate? Bush had expert counsel, so does Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/57 "2009-03-13T15:28:01Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So many things are wrong with your statements. Let’s start at the beginning. Someone who teaches his own class of students, especially in a graduate program, is their professor. Furthermore, your claim is simply wrong. And not just wrong, but egregiously wrong in several particulars. > He was a professor, and calling 12 years a “brief” period is wonky. > > [ He is a Senior Lecturer and NOT a professor. [URL=“[http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was\_barack\_obama\_really\_a\_constitutional\_law.html](http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html)”][http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was\_barack\_obama\_really\_a\_constitutional\_law.html](http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html)]([http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html)) > [@](#): > > Second, what’s your point in dropping a red herring? Whether or not he taught first year students is immaterial to the question of whether or not he had the ability to teach his subject to law students. What, you think that the profs who take first year classes aren’t as competent as those who teach third year? Well, normally, in any University, the classes in the higher years are taught by the more competent teachers. > [@](#): > > Put the goalposts down and back away slowly. > You can’t just switch, in mid argument, from a claim that he doesn’t have expertise to one that he hasn’t put that expertise into practice. > And, of course, the University of Chicago would disagree with your claim that their professors aren’t experts. > > [url=[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html)] I said that his expertise is NOT demonstrable even as he lectured on constitutional law. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/58 "2009-03-13T15:30:52Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > BHamlet, I’d pose the same question to you (or to the president, were he here). What besides ideology and personal opinion render Bush’s use of this practice beyond the pale, while Obama’s is A-okay? I’ve already explained this. "It’s like using signing statements at all. It can be fine, it can not be fine, depending on what they are being used to do. If it is used to properly invoke executive privilege or protect classified information, it’s fine. If it’s used to hide evidence of wrongdoing, it’s not. Same tool. Different jobs. One is proper, one isn’t. It’s a tough concept to grasp for some, apparently. I’ll repeat what I said about signing statements when Bush used them (insert comment about poor search functionality here): “Personally, I find nothing inherently wrong with signing statements. I’m NOT much concerned with what any President says, I’m much more interested in what they do.” ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/59 "2009-03-13T15:31:19Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > I don’t understand your perjoritive use of “lecturer”. He _lectured_, on the Constitution, probably for about two hours at a time, for a dozen years, to students who paid big bucks and took out big loans to hear those lectures. It takes a certain class of willful ignorance to not call that expertise. > > -Piker Again, it takes a certain class of fanboyism to think that that would make anyone an expert on constitutional law. Are you saying that EVERY Lecturer on constitutional law is an expert? Of course, not. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228/60 "2009-03-13T15:32:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, those **are** considered the experts in Con-Law, more so than lawyers who actually argue constitutional issues before the SCOTUS. Yeah, if they published anything. If they haven’t, how can you really say that they’re experts? You’re not saying that EVERY lecturer on constitutional law is an expert, are you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-signing-statement/489228.md?page=4)