O's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

williepete

Platinum Member
Aug 7, 2011
3,848
1,399
380
Troposphere
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013 By Ilya Shapiro

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013 - Forbes
 
Well it could be worse Obama could have deemed indefinite detention legal, target American citizens with drones strikes without due process, openly chose a political fund raiser over that of protecting foreign government employees.

Who knows what Obama will do next year with his gang of 15 unelected board that will decide what Medicare will and will not pay for as well what treatments are necessary and which ones are not. This moves to those on the government exchanges in 2016.
 
Pretty tame stuff, considering.

The president wiping his ass on the Constitution is "tame?"

Since the OP compared him to Bush, Coma Boy, let's go there:

Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers.

In a report to Congress, the non partisan Government Accountability Office studied a small sample of the bill provisions that Bush has signed into law but also challenged with signing statements. The GAO found that agencies disobeyed six such laws, while enforcing 10 others as written even though Bush had challenged them.

US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged - The Boston Globe


There are two ways President Bush likes to wage war on your civil liberties: He either asks you to surrender your rights directly—as he does when he strengthens and broadens provisions of the Patriot Act. Or he simply hoovers up new powers and hopes you won't find out—as he did when he granted himself authority to order warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. The former category seems more benign, and it's tempting to lump Bush's affinity for "presidential signing statements" in that camp. It's tempting to believe that with these statements he is merely asking that the courts take his legal views into account. But President Bush never asks anything of the courts; he doesn't think he has to. His signing statements are not aimed at persuading the courts, but at reinforcing his claim that both courts and Congress are irrelevant.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2006/01/sign_here.html
 
Last edited:
Pretty tame stuff, considering.

The president wiping his ass on the Constitution is "tame?"

Since the OP compared him to Bush, let's go there:

Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers.

In a report to Congress, the non partisan Government Accountability Office studied a small sample of the bill provisions that Bush has signed into law but also challenged with signing statements. The GAO found that agencies disobeyed six such laws, while enforcing 10 others as written even though Bush had challenged them.

US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged - The Boston Globe


There are two ways President Bush likes to wage war on your civil liberties: He either asks you to surrender your rights directly—as he does when he strengthens and broadens provisions of the Patriot Act. Or he simply hoovers up new powers and hopes you won't find out—as he did when he granted himself authority to order warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. The former category seems more benign, and it's tempting to lump Bush's affinity for "presidential signing statements" in that camp. It's tempting to believe that with these statements he is merely asking that the courts take his legal views into account. But President Bush never asks anything of the courts; he doesn't think he has to. His signing statements are not aimed at persuading the courts, but at reinforcing his claim that both courts and Congress are irrelevant.

Sign here.

Actually the far left Obama drone (you) is comparing Obama to Bush.

However you have shown with your own link that Bush was far more tame than Obama.

Leave it to the far left mindset to think they have proven otherwise.
 
BLUE-RIBBON TASK FORCE FINDS PRESIDENT BUSH'S SIGNING STATEMENTS UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS

Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force.

To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President’s right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional.


So...were you fools in a coma for eight years, or were you born after January 20, 2009? Because the sudden interest in the Constitution AFTER Obama was sworn in sure looks like it was one or the other.
 
Actually the far left Obama drone (you) is comparing Obama to Bush.

However you have shown with your own link that Bush was far more tame than Obama.

Leave it to the far left mindset to think they have proven otherwise.

Bush made clear in his signing statements he did not feel he needed to follow the laws passed by Congress.

Were any of you demanding his impeachment for that?


Didn't think so.
 
Oh, look! Here's Bush detaining a U.S. citizen indefinitely without due process: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Did any of you coma children demand his impeachment?


Didn't think so.
 
See, you let Bush use the Constitution as toilet paper all that time, and now you are shocked, shocked at the imperious attitudes that have been passed to his Executive successor? Really?

You make up imaginary slippery slopes about gay marriage, and it turns out for eight years you were building a very real one for the Presidency.

Reap what you have sown, coma boys and girls.
 
Last edited:
Oh, look! Here's Bush detaining a U.S. citizen indefinitely without due process: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Did any of you coma children demand his impeachment?


Didn't think so.

Of course not.

Then there was the cruel and unusual punishment thing in the Constitution.

Which Bush ignored as he allowed prisoners to be tortured.

Then there was the whole right to a speedy trial thing.

Luckily there is no prohibition on lying to get a war started. :eusa_shifty:
 
Pretty tame stuff, considering.

The president wiping his ass on the Constitution is "tame?"

Since the OP compared him to Bush, Coma Boy, let's go there:

Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers.

In a report to Congress, the non partisan Government Accountability Office studied a small sample of the bill provisions that Bush has signed into law but also challenged with signing statements. The GAO found that agencies disobeyed six such laws, while enforcing 10 others as written even though Bush had challenged them.

US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged - The Boston Globe


There are two ways President Bush likes to wage war on your civil liberties: He either asks you to surrender your rights directly—as he does when he strengthens and broadens provisions of the Patriot Act. Or he simply hoovers up new powers and hopes you won't find out—as he did when he granted himself authority to order warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. The former category seems more benign, and it's tempting to lump Bush's affinity for "presidential signing statements" in that camp. It's tempting to believe that with these statements he is merely asking that the courts take his legal views into account. But President Bush never asks anything of the courts; he doesn't think he has to. His signing statements are not aimed at persuading the courts, but at reinforcing his claim that both courts and Congress are irrelevant.

Sign here.

Let's see: Obama changes black letter law. Bush issues a signing statement. Yeah, those are comparable. If you're drunk. Which I dont doubt in your case, you belligerent ignoramus.
 
See, you let Bush use the Constitution as toilet paper all that time, and now you are shocked, shocked at the imperious attitudes that have been passed to his Executive successor? Really?

You make up imaginary slippery slopes about gay marriage, and it turns out for eight years you were building a very real one for the Presidency.

Reap what you have sown, coma boys and girls.

BOOOSH!!!

Yeah, Bush wasnt anyting like that. Despite your best wishes, dypso.
 
The president wiping his ass on the Constitution is "tame?"

Since the OP compared him to Bush, Coma Boy, let's go there:



US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged - The Boston Globe


There are two ways President Bush likes to wage war on your civil liberties: He either asks you to surrender your rights directly—as he does when he strengthens and broadens provisions of the Patriot Act. Or he simply hoovers up new powers and hopes you won't find out—as he did when he granted himself authority to order warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. The former category seems more benign, and it's tempting to lump Bush's affinity for "presidential signing statements" in that camp. It's tempting to believe that with these statements he is merely asking that the courts take his legal views into account. But President Bush never asks anything of the courts; he doesn't think he has to. His signing statements are not aimed at persuading the courts, but at reinforcing his claim that both courts and Congress are irrelevant.

Sign here.

Let's see: Obama changes black letter law. Bush issues a signing statement. Yeah, those are comparable. If you're drunk. Which I dont doubt in your case, you belligerent ignoramus.

Read it again, moron.

His adminstration ACTED on those signing statements. They VIOLATED the laws.

What part of "US agencies disobey 6 laws" do you need explaind to you?

Would you like to see his signing statement saying he could torture people if he felt the need?
 
Actually the far left Obama drone (you) is comparing Obama to Bush.

However you have shown with your own link that Bush was far more tame than Obama.

Leave it to the far left mindset to think they have proven otherwise.

Bush made clear in his signing statements he did not feel he needed to follow the laws passed by Congress.

Were any of you demanding his impeachment for that?


Didn't think so.

Yes the far left propaganda here is thick!
 
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

WilliePete and Ilya, I suggest you notify SCOTUS.
 
Nothing about all that is unconstitutional. Disagreeable, but not unconstitutional.
 
Oh, look! Here's Bush detaining a U.S. citizen indefinitely without due process: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Did any of you coma children demand his impeachment?


Didn't think so.

Of course not.

Then there was the cruel and unusual punishment thing in the Constitution.

Which Bush ignored as he allowed prisoners to be tortured.

Then there was the whole right to a speedy trial thing.

Luckily there is no prohibition on lying to get a war started. :eusa_shifty:

Yes those on the far left that were calling for Bush to be impeached over such things are suddenly silent when Obama does it ten fold.

Yes the far left as they keep showing are nothing but huge hypocrites.
 
All this bogus partisan hackery about the Constitution and you assholes still choke on admitting that waterboarding is torture.

You must have to compartmentalize the hell out of your parrot brains to hold such contradictory thoughts inside the same skull.

"Waterboarding is not torture" but Obama should be impeached for extending a mandate deadline? :cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top