President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations

MeeMie

No Spam Here
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Posts
7,328
President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations

By Ilya Shapiro


“Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court earlier this year.


If the federal government acts outside the scope of its delegated and carefully enumerated powers, then it’s no better than an armed mob.

The Obama administration and its allies in Congress have perpetrated more than their share of such mob-like actions. While it’s hard to narrow them down, here’s my stab at the government’s top 10 constitutional violations since President Obama took office.



1. The individual mandate

No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term.

2. Medicaid coercion

The Court will also be taking up Obamacare’s massive intrusion on federal-state relations in the form of a coercive Medicaid expansion. The law compels states to drastically increase their Medicaid expenditures and reorganize their health care bureaucracies, on penalty of losing all (not just additional) Medicaid funds. No state contemplated such a program when it signed onto Medicaid — Arizona was the last to join, in 1982 — and now no state can afford to withdraw. Indeed, even if some withdrawal mechanism existed, withdrawn states’ taxpayers would still be funding complying states’ Medicaid programs. As the Supreme Court held in South Dakota v. Dole, there comes a point when “the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion.”

3. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (a.k.a. “The Death Panel”)

IPAB is the group of 15 presidential appointees who, beginning in 2014, are tasked with reducing Medicare spending. Any decisions IPAB makes automatically become law that can only be overridden by a three-fifths majority vote in the Senate. Unlike other federal agencies, IPAB is subject to no external review — no public notification in advance of proposed rules or opportunity for comment, no administrative guidelines and no judicial review. Medicare comprises about 13 percent of the federal budget, so that’s an awesome amount of power for Congress to delegate to unelected executive-branch bureaucrats. Indeed, it’s so basic a violation of traditional separation of powers that there’s no historical analog. The Goldwater Institute has filed a strong lawsuit challenging this (yet another) unprecedented aspect of Obamacare, which will continue wending its way through the lower courts regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the individual mandate and Medicaid-coercion issues.

4. The Chrysler bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors — who were entitled to “absolute priority” — into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses. This blatant crony capitalism — government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders — discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law.

5. Dodd-Frank

Intended to remedy weaknesses in the U.S. financial system — ensuring transparency and accountability — the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” empowered unlimited, unreviewable and often secret bureaucratic discretion. The administrative bodies the legislation created face no constraints on the exercise of arbitrary authority. For example, the Treasury Department now has broad and essentially unchecked power to seize banks and other financial entities that it determines are unsound but “too big to fail.” The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, meanwhile, craft, execute and interpret their own law. Due process and separation of powers issues abound.

6. The deep-water drilling ban

Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Interior Department issued a blanket six-month moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge struck down that moratorium as arbitrary and capricious, but the government issued a new order to replace the one that was struck down. That order was subsequently withdrawn, but the judge was so shocked by the administration’s conduct that he found the government in civil contempt of court.

7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors

In April of this year, President Obama released a draft executive order (still pending) that would require businesses with federal contracts to disclose independent expenditures on federal elections (political speech independent of candidates and parties). This order is intended to undermine the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision — allowing independent expenditures by corporations, unions and other associations — by discouraging federal contractors and their executives from engaging in political speech. Citizens United held that such expenditures do not enable the kind of quid pro quo corruption that campaign finance laws are allowed to regulate, so this draft executive order shows contempt for the First Amendment by chilling protected speech.

8. Taxing political contributions

Earlier this year, the IRS tried to muzzle political speech by asserting that donations to certain nonprofit advocacy groups (so-called 501(c)(4) organizations) would be subject to the gift tax. Historically, the IRS has not applied the gift tax in this way — donations to advocacy groups are not likely to be used to circumvent the estate tax — and when the IRS previously tried to tax political donations, it was rebuffed by the courts on the grounds that such transfers are not gifts (i.e., the donor is getting something in return). The IRS has since backed down, but the suspicion remains that it was trying to chill the political speech of those opposed to President Obama’s policies, in violation of the First Amendment.

9. Graphic tobacco warnings

Late last year, the FDA issued regulations requiring cigarette manufacturers to display graphic warnings on all packs of cigarettes that must cover at least 50% of the packaging and graphically portray tobacco-related illnesses. These warnings violate the First Amendment because the government is compelling the cigarette manufacturers to discourage their customers from buying their lawful products. Last month, a federal judge blocked the new regulation, which was due to go into effect in January, but the administration is appealing.

10. Health care waivers

The Department of Health and Human Services has granted nearly 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s onerous regulations. Nearly 20 percent of these waivers went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while Republican-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Even beyond the unseemly political favoritism, such arbitrary dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions ranging from equal protection to the “intelligible principle” required for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies. Unlike 17th-century English monarchs, American presidents were not granted dispensing powers: As we’ve seen, the power to suspend a legal requirement can and will be used to arbitrarily favor the politically connected. Moreover, most of these waivers were never authorized by Congress in the first place!



http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/#ixzz1ffYm0HJM
 
FDA, IRS, DHS, Congress.

Lucky for you, false advertising doesn't violate the Constitution.
 
Here's another than comes to mind...

Obama Regime Moves to Kill Boeing Plant in South Carolina

Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina. Surging global demand for the innovative, new 787 Dreamliner exceeded what Boeing could build on one production line and needed to open another.

This was good news for Boeing and for the economy.

The new jetliner assembly plant would be the first one built in the U.S. in 40 years. It would create new American jobs at a time when most employers are hunkered down. It would expand the domestic footprint of the nation’s leading exporter and make it more competitive against emerging plane makers from China, Russia and elsewhere. And it would bring hope to a state burdened by double-digit unemployment — with the construction phase alone estimated to create more than 9,000 total jobs.

Eighteen months later, a North Charleston swamp had been transformed into a state-of-the-art, green-energy powered, 1.2 million square-foot airplane assembly plant. One thousand new workers hired and being trained to start building planes in July.

And then ...

Obama's grip using the National Labor Relations Board claims Boeing's actions were unlawful. It claims Boeing improperly transferred existing work, and that the decision reflected “animus” and constituted “retaliation” against union-represented employees in Washington state.

Its remedy:
Reverse course, Boeing, and build the assembly line where we tell you to build it.




The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority. Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America’s competitiveness since it became the world’s largest economy nearly 140 years ago.

Boeing made a rational, legal business decision about the allocation of company capital and the placement of new work within the U.S.

We’re confident the federal courts will reject the NLRB claim, but only after a significant and unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
 
If the Supremes accept the proposition that Congress can ordain any act and appliance to 'assist' the national economy, then nothing is exempt.

Would the deaths of 79,000,000 Boomers help out? Of course.
 
This was a blatant abuse of power of office...



President Obama Scolds Supreme Court Justices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc



In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision.

He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him during his state of the union speech .

Not only did the president display a gross lack of grace in doing this, but many Democratic members of Congress in the audience surrounding the seated justices threw fuel on the fire by standing and pointedly applauding the preident’s remarks directed at the justices.

The words were deliberately and with premeditation inserted into the speech by Obama’s speech writers; done obviously with his approval. He knew exactly what he was doing.

What the President was doing was taking a cheap, political shot at the Supreme Court – or at least one aimed at the five justices who voted in the majority opinion last week overturning a portion of the federal election laws that had made it illegal for corporations and labor unions to spend money to disseminate political views.

In his insulting remarks to the justices seated in front of him, the President falsely claimed that the High Court ruling would “open the floodgates for special interests” to spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. In fact, the ruling did nothing of the sort; it did not even address contributions to candidates.

The opinion with which the Presdient so obviously and vehemently disagrees simply allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to spend their lawful money to disseminate political advocacy through such medium as movies.

In asking the Congress “to right this wrong” of the ruling by the Court, Obama displayed further ignorance of that about which he was speaking.

The fact is, the case last week specifically overturned an Act of the Congress that had taken away the long-recognized rights of corporations to express themselves and their shareholders under the First Amendment.

If Congress were to heed the president’s call, it would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional!

Clearly, the absurdity of such an argument didn’t stand in the way of a president all-too-eager to score political points wherever he can — even at the expense of deliberately trying to demean the one institution in our country that should remain outside the arena in which such attacks are so often made these days.

President Obama should know this, and it is disappointing in the extreme that he appears not to.
 
Obama Civilian Security


This should scare the shit out of every freedom loving American ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s


"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."



Achieve the national security objectives he set? Sounds like martial law to me.
 
ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION


Some people seem to be forgetting that it is “our Constitution.” It belongs to the American people. It is not the property of the President, the Congress, or even the Federal courts. It is not theirs to tinker with, rewrite, or ignore depending on their personal whims and ideologies. It was carefully crafted by the founding fathers to provide a form of government that was limited, not all powerful.

The Bill of Rights does not contain a list of rights that are given to the American people by the government. Instead it provides a list of the rights that are inherently ours, and they can’t be taken away by the government. For example, despite their claims to the contrary, freedom of speech and freedom of the press don’t just belong to those that agree with a certain political ideology. In addition, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not designed for only the people who consider themselves elite and better than the rest of us. In fact, it was designed to protect us from them.



However, despite these truths that have been the foundation of our Republic for over 200 years, every article, section, and amendment of one of our most precious documents is under constant and unrelenting attack by the current administration. The balance of powers between the three branches of government is being ignored in favor of a de facto dictatorship by those who consider themselves above the rest of us. They think they are ordained to tell us how to live our lives and to decide what is best for us.
 
(edited)
ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION


Some people seem to be forgetting that it is “our Constitution.” It belongs to the American people. It is not the property of the President, the Congress, or even the Federal courts. It is not theirs to tinker with, rewrite, or ignore depending on their personal whims and ideologies. It was carefully crafted by the founding fathers to provide a form of government that was limited, not all powerful.

The Bill of Rights does not contain a list of rights that are given to the American people by the government. Instead it provides a list of the rights that are inherently ours, and they can’t be taken away by the government. For example, despite their claims to the contrary, freedom of speech and freedom of the press don’t just belong to those that agree with a certain political ideology. In addition, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not designed for only the people who consider themselves elite and better than the rest of us. In fact, it was designed to protect us from them.
Damned right you are. The Constitution is for the people, not corporations.

So why should corporations be allowed to contribute to election campaigns again?
 
President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations

You do realize that nothing on this list, if floated as a dire warning before the 2008 election, would have frightened most Americans who believed it? The "unconstitutional" practices that actually frighten them are those that W/Cheney started and Obama has failed to discontinue.
 
The opinion with which the Presdient so obviously and vehemently disagrees simply allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

How fucking absurd is it that a legal fiction - "a corporation" - has or should be extended First Amendment protection?

I still cannot imagine how this came to pass. I will have to go and read the opinion and the dissent. Maybe the Colonel can help shed some light. He is the legal scholar.
 

Obama violated Constitutional Law regarding Census



Obama's move of the Census to his personal control is unconstitutional:
"The director of the Census Bureau will report to the White House."



In Article I, Section 2 the US Constitution orders that:

"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."


The Congress, by law directed that:

"The Secretary [of Commerce] shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate."



The Director of the Census must, by Constitutional Law, be within the Department of Commerce and under the direction of the Senate approved Secretary of Commerce who then reports to the president.


It was yet another flagrant power grab by Obama, et ux.



Judicial Watch Obtains Obama Commerce Department Documents Detailing ACORN Partnership for 2010 Census


Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the U.S. Census Bureau detailing the substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census.

Included among the 126 pages of documents, obtained by Judicial Watch under threat of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, ACORN, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2...artment-documents-detailing-acorn-partnership
 
War Powers Violation in Libya


No president is above the law. President Obama was in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution.

House Speaker John A. Boehner sent a letter to President Obama informing him that the Congress now views him breach of the War Powers Resolution absent authorization from Congress for his military deployment in Libya.

“The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation.”

Obama has violated the War Powers Act, and NATO obligations are not an excuse to override Congress' authority.
 
DREAM ACT:
OBAMA PASSES AMNESTY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER



Opposed by a majority of the American people and twice defeated in Congress, the DREAM Act grants amnesty to any illegal alien residing in the United States if s/he agrees to enlist in the U.S. military or enter college.

In June, with no fanfare, no press coverage, and with every effort made to hide his actions from the American people, President Obama enacted the DREAM Act by executive order.


Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer calls this maneuver a Constitutional breech pointing out that it is Congress's responsibility to enact laws: This is outright lawlessness on the part of the administration. Whatever the politics of this, we do have a Constitution. And under it, the Legislature, the Congress enacts the laws and the executive executes them. It doesn't make them up. The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress, Krauthammer continued. It is now being enacted by the executive, despite the express will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order; it's an implicit one. The Obama administration IS explicitly running an end-run around the will of people and their representative government. First Libya and now this.
 
War Powers Violation in Libya


No president is above the law. President Obama was in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution.

House Speaker John A. Boehner sent a letter to President Obama informing him that the Congress now views him breach of the War Powers Resolution absent authorization from Congress for his military deployment in Libya.

“The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation.”

Obama has violated the War Powers Act, and NATO obligations are not an excuse to override Congress' authority.
Operation Odyssey Dawn only lasted 13 days, not over 90.
 
DREAM ACT:
OBAMA PASSES AMNESTY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER



Opposed by a majority of the American people and twice defeated in Congress, the DREAM Act grants amnesty to any illegal alien residing in the United States if s/he agrees to enlist in the U.S. military or enter college.

In June, with no fanfare, no press coverage, and with every effort made to hide his actions from the American people, President Obama enacted the DREAM Act by executive order.


Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer calls this maneuver a Constitutional breech pointing out that it is Congress's responsibility to enact laws: This is outright lawlessness on the part of the administration. Whatever the politics of this, we do have a Constitution. And under it, the Legislature, the Congress enacts the laws and the executive executes them. It doesn't make them up. The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress, Krauthammer continued. It is now being enacted by the executive, despite the express will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order; it's an implicit one. The Obama administration IS explicitly running an end-run around the will of people and their representative government. First Libya and now this.
You lie!

http://spituponmyblazer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/art_joe_wilson_gi.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/did-obama-enact-dream-act/
 
  • Obama didn’t care about the law or Constitution when he threw the bondholders, shareholders, and secured creditors of GM and Chrysler under the bus so he could hand majority ownership to his union cronies that bankrupted and destroyed them in the first place.

  • Obama didn’t care about the law or Constitution when he passed universal healthcare and forced American citizens to buy healthcare, pay a fine, or go to jail.

  • Obama didn’t care about the law or Constitution when he raised taxes on everyone to pay for universal healthcare, EXCEPT union employees and handpicked states given waivers while Obama administration rejects Republican states' health law waiver

  • Obama didn’t care about the law or Constitution when he asked the United States Justice Department to sue Arizona for simply enforcing U.S. immigration law. Obama broke the rule of law and violated the Constitution when he asked the United States Justice Department to sue Arizona for simply enforcing U.S. immigration law already on the books.

  • Obama didn’t care about the law or Constitution when he demanded a halt to an entire industry — offshore oil drilling — in response to the first accident in more than 40 years. So far two courts have overturned that ban. Eventually the Supreme Court will overturn it as well. But those violations of the Constitution, costing over 100,000 jobs and bankrupting hundreds of oil industry and Main Street small businesses, never bothered Obama — not when his violations make George Soros and his big campaign contributors in the environmental lobby happy and keep their wallets full.

  • Obama didn’t care about the law or Constitution when he bailed out banks and Wall Street firms with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. Sen. Obama was among the biggest beneficiaries of contributions from AIG, Goldman Sacks, and the banking industry.

  • Obama didn’t care about the law or Constitution when he included a clause in the just-passed financial reform bill that mandates redlining affirmative action when banks give out small business loans, forcing banks to loan shareholder’s money to one racial group, regardless of their assets, credit history, or ability to repay. This redlining affirmative action practice, originally enacted by Jimmy Carter, already is responsible for the present banking/real estate crisis when forced liberal policies trumped sound business practices.
 
  • He violated the Defense of Marriage Act -
  • On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that, under Obama's direction, the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA, which is under attack in several federal courts, DOMA, which was passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. It defines marriage for all federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman, and allows states under the Full Faith and Credit clause not to be forced to recognize unions from other states that do not comport with their state marriage laws. Forty-five states have moved to strengthen their marriage laws, with 30 enacting constitutional amendments.

  • He violated the 15th Amendment -
  • At Obama dictates, the Justice Department has effectively become a race-based enforcement unit. After New Black Panther Party members were caught on tape intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, the Justice Department declined to defend the convictions, and thus sent the message that baton-wielding thuggish-ness on Election Day is no longer a big deal, so I guess we can expect more of the same in the future. Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who laid out the case before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, described the administration's dismissal of charges as "lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law."

  • Cap and Trade -
  • In 2010, the Senate rejected a sweeping environmental bill that would have created a massive federal carbon regulation system. Despite this, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would treat carbon dioxide (the air we breathe out and the gas that all vegetation needs to live) as a pollutant, and begin cracking down on America's businesses and power plants. The EPA has become a law unto itself.

  • He violated the Fifth Amendment -
  • The Constitution guarantees that no one is deprived of their property without "due process of law" or without "just compensation.” The National Labor Relations Board's absurd order to Boeing not to open a newly built $750-million Dreamliner facility in right-to-work South Carolina because unions in Boeing's home state of Washington violates that guarantee. Even liberal New York Times columnist Joseph Nocera commented: “Seriously, when has a president ever tried to dictate where a company makes its products?”

  • He violated the First Amendment -
  • The NLRB struck again this year, declaring two Catholic universities -- St. Xavier University in Chicago and Manhattan College in New York -- as not sufficiently "religious.” If the holdings stand, the schools may see the NLRB assert jurisdiction and rope the faculty and employees into a union election.
 
Back
Top