Obama's Constitution twisting: His arrogant claims are worse than Nixon's

[Selene]

Brilliant column by George Will today:

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority. Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will081413.php3#.Ug1xTFPDK8A

A...

[GALTGULCH8]

<<<"Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”

When was it “normal”? The 1850s? The 1950s? Washington has been the nation’s capital for 213 years; Obama has been here less than nine. Even if he understood “normal” political environments here, the Constitution is not suspended when a president decides the “environment” is abnormal.

Neither does the Constitution confer on presidents the power to rewrite laws if they decide the change is a “tweak” not involving the law’s “essence.” Anyway, the employer mandate isessential to the ACA.

Twenty-three days before his news conference, the House voted 264 to 161, with 35 Democrats in the majority, for the rule of law — for, that is, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act. It would have done lawfully what Obama did by ukase. He threatened to veto this use of legislation to alter a law. The White House called it “unnecessary,” presumably because he has an uncircumscribed “executive authority” to alter laws.

RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

In a 1977 interview with Richard Nixon, David Frost asked: “Would you say that there are certain situations . . . where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation. . . and do something illegal?”

Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Frost: “By definition.”

Nixon: “Exactly, exactly.”

Nixon’s claim, although constitutionally grotesque, was less so than the claim implicit in Obama’s actions regarding the ACA. Nixon’s claim was confined to matters of national security or (he said to Frost) “a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude.” Obama’s audacity is more spacious; it encompasses a right to disregard any portion of any law pertaining to any subject at any time when the political “environment” is difficult.

Obama should be embarrassed that, by ignoring the legal requirement concerning the employer mandate, he has validated critics who say the ACA cannot be implemented as written. What does not embarrass him is his complicity in effectively rewriting the ACA for the financial advantage of self-dealing members of Congress and their staffs.

The ACA says members of Congress (annual salaries: $174,000) and their staffs (thousands making more than $100,000) must participate in the law’s insurance exchanges. It does not say that when this change goes into effect, the current federal subsidy for this affluent cohort — up to 75 percent of the premium’s cost, perhaps $10,000 for families — should be unchanged.

When Congress awakened to what it enacted, it panicked: This could cause a flight of talent, making Congress less wonderful. So Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management, which has no power to do this, to authorize for the political class special subsidiesunavailable for less privileged and less affluent citizens.

If the president does it, it’s legal? “Exactly, exactly.”>>>

I went to the website to which you gave us the link and found the rest of the article you quoted to be quite equally shocking, so I chose to paste it above. The comparison with Nixon's audacious disregard for the limits enshrined in the Constitution is compelling. Perhaps the day is approaching when America will wake up to the fact that these politicians, with few exceptions, do not take their oath of office seriously, and by ignoring it bring us closer to tyranny.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will081413.php3#.Ug2Hg-DLgqZ

[Selene]

I went to the website to which you gave us the link and found the rest of the article you quoted to be quite equally shocking, so I chose to paste it above. The comparison with Nixon's audacious disregard for the limits enshrined in the Constitution is compelling. Perhaps the day is approaching when America will wake up to the fact that these politicians, with few exceptions, do not take their oath of office seriously, and by ignoring it bring us closer to tyranny.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will081413.php3#.Ug2Hg-DLgqZ

Um Gulch, did you not notice the link under the quoted section which is the same as yours...you are a cardiologist, correct?

Please tell me you are not an eye surgeon!!!!

[GALTGULCH8]

Adam,

If you look at the end of my post you will notice that I mention that i went to your linked site. I pasted what I did for a reason.

It is now here for all to see including those who might not choose to click on the link.

Regarding the fact that we know of at least two presidents who think it is justifiable for them to go beyond the powers granted for their office.

I realize that Article 1 Section 8 lists the powers granted to the Congress. One must look elsewhere to find the limits on the powers of the president.

I am waiting for someone to point out the precedent set by Thomas Jefferson whose Louisianna Purchase is not granted to the president in the Constitution, is it?

gg

[Selene]

Gulch:

The reason that I posted it that way, is that I have been told that there are fair use issues about putting the full piece on OL.

Therefore, in order to spare Michael and Kat any unnecessary grief, I frame it that way.

A...

[GALTGULCH8]

Adam,

Thanks for the heads up. So I posted the other half. I gather you found that half to be valuable too.

It is disturbing that so many people in this country go about their business with no understanding of what is happening. Very few commentators among which is George Will, point out the utter unconstitutionality of Obama's actions.

Given that the only movement which appears to be enlightening its growing membership is the Students For Liberty and Young Americans For Liberty and both are still in a virtually embryonic stage of development one can only hope that their numbers do grow exponentially.

The efforts of many other organizations are helping the cause as well but only the SFL and YAL appear to be growing rapidly in an environment which provides fertile minds for enlightenment.

Their numbers are not doubling every minute. It is conceivable that their growth is accelerating at this stage. It takes some time for a new recruit to obtain and to read so many books about philosophy, economics, politics, history, psychology etc in order to be armed intellectually with the ideas and principles necessary to carry and pass the torch on to others. Who knows how much time we have and whether there is enough time. Things are getting dangerously worse with the prospect of a worldwide depression, fiat currency collapse, bankruptcy and civil unrest with a possibility of, heaven forbid, totalitarian dictatorship and loss of freedom of speech, the press, association etc.

it is encouraging that the ideas and the movement exists and at least part of it is growing.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I must admit to warming up to George Will's columns in the past few years. They are now more focused on liberty than on his old motif, "statecraft," i.e. national "strength."

Today's column is an exception. Starved By The Sequester is a long whine about what the dreaded sequester is doing to federal cancer research.

[Selene]

FF:

Agreed. However, three reasons to stay on Georgie's side:

1) he loves baseball;

2) he writes exceptionally well; and

3) he gets it and he can think and is therefore 'suaseible [new word I just invented].

A...

[Mikee]

FF:

Agreed. However, three reasons to stay on Georgie's side:

1) he loves baseball;

2) he writes exceptionally well; and

3) he gets it and he can think and is therefore 'suaseible [new word I just invented].

A...

Already taken. Misspellings are not new words. There's also the synonym "persuasible": The antonym would be "Carol".

Sua´si`ble

a. 1.

Capable of being persuaded; easily persuaded.

[caroljane]

Sticks and stones may break my bones Mikee, but your avatar is so great that you can never hurt me.

(Please don't change it just to torment - think of the others who would be deprived!

Other individualists that you like, I mean. Totally your right to not think of them.

[Selene]

FF:

Agreed. However, three reasons to stay on Georgie's side:

1) he loves baseball;

2) he writes exceptionally well; and

3) he gets it and he can think and is therefore 'suaseible [new word I just invented].

A...

Already taken. Misspellings are not new words. There's also the synonym "persuasible": The antonym would be "Carol".

Sua´si`ble

a. 1.

Capable of being persuaded; easily persuaded.

See I knew that when I typed it. I just was not sure - great antonym joke by the way....

[Mikee]

It was a fucking compliment you thick headed wench.

You note the rat in my avatar? That's not me BTW. The cat is Smokey, good at finding rats and bringing them home. Not good at keeping them. This one ran up the trellis onto the light. I rescued him, walked him across the street and threw him in the bushes. Next day found his body, again in my back yard. I have about a thousand pictures of Smokey. He delights me to no end. He loves to be combed, I know when he's finished because he bites me. "I'm done now"...munch.

[Selene]

It was a fucking compliment you thick headed wench.

You note the rat in my avatar? That's not me BTW. The cat is Smokey, good at finding rats and bringing them home. Not good at keeping them. This one ran up the trellis onto the light. I rescued him, walked him across the street and threw him in the bushes. Next day found his body, again in my back yard. I have about a thousand pictures of Smokey. He delights me to no end. He loves to be combed, I know when he's finished because he bites me. "I'm done now"...munch.

Damn! This post would trigger hours of analysis!

[Mikee]

It was a fucking compliment you thick headed wench.

You note the rat in my avatar? That's not me BTW. The cat is Smokey, good at finding rats and bringing them home. Not good at keeping them. This one ran up the trellis onto the light. I rescued him, walked him across the street and threw him in the bushes. Next day found his body, again in my back yard. I have about a thousand pictures of Smokey. He delights me to no end. He loves to be combed, I know when he's finished because he bites me. "I'm done now"...munch.

Damn! This post would trigger hours of analysis!

Well, the first part is my attempt at "stream of consciousness" writing. Well, slightly edited: my wife cautions me against using either the "C" word [#1 no-no] or the "B" word is reference to a woman. I've found it wise to listen to my wife's advice.

What's wrong with cats? I've always loved cats... I still miss my cat "Big Guy" who died at 17.5 in 2004. He played a little rough but I consider the blood loss as an important part of the "paleo" lifestyle.

[caroljane]

Your Smokey reminds me of my dearly missed Satan, resentful great-great-grandmother of many, who was adopted to kill mice but turned out to be more terrified of them than we were. If she had ever seen a rat she would probably not have lived to reproduce.

[caroljane]

It is good to know that a rational woman is in charge of you Mikee. She has my deepest empathies!

[Brant Gaede]

It was a fucking compliment you thick headed wench.

You note the rat in my avatar? That's not me BTW. The cat is Smokey, good at finding rats and bringing them home. Not good at keeping them. This one ran up the trellis onto the light. I rescued him, walked him across the street and threw him in the bushes. Next day found his body, again in my back yard. I have about a thousand pictures of Smokey. He delights me to no end. He loves to be combed, I know when he's finished because he bites me. "I'm done now"...munch.

Damn! This post would trigger hours of analysis!

Well, the first part is my attempt at "stream of consciousness" writing. Well, slightly edited: my wife cautions me against using either the "C" word [#1 no-no] or the "B" word is reference to a woman. I've found it wise to listen to my wife's advice.

What's wrong with cats? I've always loved cats... I still miss my cat "Big Guy" who died at 17.5 in 2004. He played a little rough but I consider the blood loss as an important part of the "paleo" lifestyle.

First I ever heard of a cat into S&M.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Cats are basically coldhearted murderers except the stupid ones, like ours. I love cats. Is that a kind of Randianism in me which I am repressing? I don't like human murderers at all, that I know of.

[Mikee]

Cats are basically coldhearted murderers except the stupid ones, like ours. I love cats. Is that a kind of Randianism in me which I am repressing? I don't like human murderers at all, that I know of.

They are not murderers. They are geniuses at being cats. Life is exceedingly tough for them if they don't find a human companion. I've been feeding a local feral cat the last few months. It's taken a long time to get where he'll even stay in the yard when we're outside. He's a tiny little guy, half the size of Smokey, but he's got Smokey cowed (Smokey doesn't have his balls). We call him Shadow because he's so good at being invisible. Someone dumped him when he was really young probably a few weeks old. He's been living on bugs and hiding from everything his whole life, that's why he's so small. I can't get close to him, he still hisses when I bring food out but he doesn't run away. I like to watch him when he's curled up sleeping next to our fence. I don't like murderers either, you throw the word about a bit loosely I'm afraid.

[caroljane]

Oh, oh. I want to give Shadow a whole retroactive kittenhood in our cattery.

Better not send him though. He is better off with you.

[Brant Gaede]

Cats are basically coldhearted murderers except the stupid ones, like ours. I love cats. Is that a kind of Randianism in me which I am repressing? I don't like human murderers at all, that I know of.

They are not murderers. They are geniuses at being cats. Life is exceedingly tough for them if they don't find a human companion. I've been feeding a local feral cat the last few months. It's taken a long time to get where he'll even stay in the yard when we're outside. He's a tiny little guy, half the size of Smokey, but he's got Smokey cowed (Smokey doesn't have his balls). We call him Shadow because he's so good at being invisible. Someone dumped him when he was really young probably a few weeks old. He's been living on bugs and hiding from everything his whole life, that's why he's so small. I can't get close to him, he still hisses when I bring food out but he doesn't run away. I like to watch him when he's curled up sleeping next to our fence. I don't like murderers either, you throw the word about a bit loosely I'm afraid.

Outdoor and feral cats in my neighborhood get eaten by coyotes. Fact of life. Feral cats typically are smaller than house cats. My uncle took in a feral cat in Ohio. Took him a year to get him to come inside.

--Brant

life is tough for people too, including those who don't know it (is running through their fingers)

[caroljane]

Wrong, it is tougher when they know it is running through their fingers.

[Brant Gaede]

Wrong, it is tougher when they know it is running through their fingers.

Wrong. I said "tough," not "tougher." Right. It is tougher, except knowledge opens the door to remedy.

--Brant

always willing to win an argument, especially with a woman!

[caroljane]

And

I will be there with the champagne when you do !

[Brant Gaede]

And

I will be there with the champagne when you do !

I won't drink it if you've already popped the cork.

--Brant