When a Republican President Does It, It's Not Illegal


On Monday nine state attorneys general, all of them Republicans, issued a memo that lists "21 illegal actions" by the Obama administration. "This president and his administration, in my view, represent the greatest set of lawbreakers that have run the federal government in our lifetimes," Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said at a press conference. "The fact is, President Obama and his appointees have ignored federal laws, they've ignored binding rulings of federal courts, and they've ignored the limits on their power mandated by the Constitution." Cuccinelli and his colleagues call themselves "the last line of defense against an increasingly overreaching federal government." Too bad this line of defense is so leaky and so contingent on partisan politics.

Cuccinelli et al.'s list of "Obama Administration Violations" includes the individual health insurance mandate, the regulation requiring employers to provide medical coverage that includes contraceptives, the FCC's "net neutrality" initiative, various questionable actions by the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and federal challenges to state laws dealing with voting, immigration, and union organizing. The legal case against many of these federal actions is strong, though not always the slam-dunk that the nine attorneys general imply. But the list conspicuously omits illegal or unconstitutional policies in which both Obama and his predecessor are implicated, such as the automaker bailouts (begun as an illegal use of TARP money under George W. Bush, continued under Obama with the added twist of rewriting bankruptcy law on the fly), warrantless surveillance of communications involving people in the United States (begun illegally under Bush, now authorized by legislation Obama supported, but still a Fourth Amendment problem), indefinite detention of terrorism suspects (begun under Bush, continued under Obama), summary execution of terrorism suspects in other countries (contemplated by Bush, practiced and publicly defended by Obama), the FCC's unconstitutional indecency regulations (enforced under Bush and Obama), unauthorized wars (actually more of a problem under Obama than Bush, but Republicans want to preserve military lattitude for their guys), and interference with state laws allowing the medical use of marijuana (meddling that was approved during the Bush adminstration by Gonzales v. Raich, which endorsed the absurdly broad reading of the Commerce Clause that is now used to defend ObamaCare). Cuccinelli is a leading opponent of the theory that failing to buy government-prescribed health insurance is interstate commerce, but he seems to have no problem with the idea that a marijuana plant on a cancer patient's windowsill is. And that's leaving aside all the myriad things the federal government does, from regulating education to launching spacecraft, with the approval of both major parties but without constitutional authority. If Cuccinelli and his friends were serious about resisting "an increasingly overreaching federal government," they would not be so selective in their indictment of Obama.

[via The Examiner]

NEXT: Peter Suderman on Mitt Romney's Fake Policy Plans

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Cuccinelli and his friends were serious about resisting "an increasingly overreaching federal government," they would not be so selective in their indictment of Obama.

    So...what? They should STFU and give Obama a pass?

    1. They should speak up when their guy is in office is the message, I think. Just like Democrat state politicians should be speaking up now.

      1. Of course they should, but that doesn't invalidate what they are speaking up against now. Half a loaf is better than none, and all that.

        1. Exactly. This is something to hit them with when there's a Republican President. Sure, talk about it now, but make sure to bring it up then, too.

          Furthermore, that's the one GOOD thing about a 2-party system. We would hope that Democratic AGs might hold Republican Presidents' fee to the fire, if his fellow GOPers don't.

        2. Not really -- by failing to acknowledge and speak up against Bush's abuses of power, it makes it easier for moderates and Democrats to dismiss it as standard partisan bullshit.

    2. You can find the answer in the very quote you copy-and-pasted: they shouldn't be so selective in their indictments of Obama. In other words, they should call out Obama for both the things that the Republicans oppose AND the unconstitutional actions he's supported to which Republicans were complicit.

      1. Like I said, half a loaf. I'm not going to ket the perfect be the enemy of the good when someone is willing to hold any statist feet to the fire.

  2. We the People of these 50 States have patiently suffered mounting government outrages against us ? lies, corruption, legal plunder and terror. We have waited in despair for reforms and redress, but the outrages have only gotten worse. We can now wait no longer. The fundamental rights of "We the People" must be restored now. Government's role must be limited to protection of our lives, liberty and property. When government ceases to be our protector and instead becomes our master, it becomes an abomination. These are the crimes of the modern American State against its citizens...


  3. TAG TEAM!

  4. How many of these guys were AGs when Bush was President?

  5. But the list conspicuously omits illegal or unconstitutional policies in which both Obama and his predecessor are implicated

    Wait, I thought this site was just full of GOP shills. MNG said so, so it must be true.

    1. He was talking about commenters. I mean, the ones that aren't trolls or psychotic obsessives.

      1. I smell bigotry in your post, cynical.

  6. Prior wrong actions are not a justification for current or future wrong actions. If it is wrong, it is wrong, regardless of who is doing it or who did it prior.

    I do expect the right thing (Constitutional) to be done and hold accountable both parties the same in this regard.

    1. Not when it's For The Children.

  7. This is mainly due to the high quality standards being maintained by the company for around eight decades. These stylish jackets are designed on the borders of Scotland and north east England. These jackets represent a lifestyle statement for those who wear them and love them. So, lacoste polo shirts men's outlet vif you are interested in buying comfortable and stylish polo shirts, look no further than this brand of shirts!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.