Barack Obama

Law Prof: "Team Obama's Staggering, Scary Assault on Our Constitution"

|

Credit: C-Span

Writing at FoxNews.com, George Mason University law professor David Bernstein chronicles the Obama administration's serial mistreatment of the Constitution, a list that ranges from recess appointments abuse to the president's unilateral tinkering with the health care law. Bernstein writes:

It wasn't supposed to be this way.  Contrasting himself with then-President Bush, Barack Obama emphasized during his presidential campaign that he "will obey the Constitution of the United States" and not try to do end-runs around Congress.

Obama promised he would not commit the U.S. to armed conflict without Congress's consent, and that his administration will "set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers."

The reality has been quite different.  

The Obama administration has repeatedly engaged in actions that range from constitutionally dubious to blatantly unconstitutional.

Read the whole thing here.

Related: A Brief History of Obama's Biggest Constitutional Flops.

Advertisement

NEXT: 15 Facts About the Underground Sex Economy in America

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. Bush started it.

    1. BOOOOSSSHHH!!!!

    2. “Bush started it”
      Or some would say Jefferson with his purchase of Louisiana etc. Or Lincoln with his suspension of habeas corpus. But many apologists would say “the constitution isn’t a suicide pact.”
      In Lincoln’s case, of course, it was difficult to rapidly assemble a Congress due to transportation and communication problems. Technologically has eliminated that excuse for Our Glorious Leader. He knows Congress will do nothing to stop him (House impeachment and found guilty by the Senate) and SCOTUS is reliably hamstrung on many issues.

    3. Gore would have been worse.

  2. OMG it’s so scary!
    Help me, Fox & Friends!

  3. Pfftt – from Faux News. What do you expect?

  4. Something something living document, exigent circumstances, something something, needs of the many, blargle blargle.

  5. Most egregiously, President Obama has thirty times ordered his underlings to delay, modify, and ignore various provisions of the Affordable Care Act

    This is the most egregious? Weak stuff.

    When it comes to the Obama health law, known officially as the Affordable Care Act, there is ample evidence of how lawmakers granted sweeping powers to the Executive Branch to work out the details of this complicated law.

    It’s pretty simple stuff – as the Congress directly instructed the feds to write a variety of rules and regulations.

    First, let’s start with the text of the Obama health law. You can find it at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B…..90enr.pdf.

    I’ll give you a minute. Bring it up in a separate window on your computer screen.

    Just search for the word “Secretary.” That will give you 3,267 instances, with things like, “The Secretary shall establish,” or “The Secretary may develop guidelines,” and “the Secretary shall develop standards” and the “Secretary shall, by regulation,” – you get the picture.

    Speaking of regulation, a quick search of the document shows 195 instances of the word “regulations” in the health reform law.

    But instead of searching for that, search for “regulations.” – with the period.

    This gives you 35 examples in the bill where the Congress gives the Executive Branch the power to write rules and regulations for the health law.

    AJC

    1. http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jam…..ealth-law/

      Link.

      A reporter for the AJC schools this GMU law prof. How embarrassing for GMU.

      1. “Let’s defend Obama by citing the mind-numbingly abstruse law he signed, counting the bare number of delegations to the Secretary, but citing only a single example of a legal provision which is linked to the administration’s controverted actions.”

        1. It is very clear that Congress gave the executive branch broad leeway in defining this “abstruse” law.

          All this whining about the changes being unconstitutional is just more shit-flinging by opportunists who prey on an uninformed reader base – in this case Fox News.

          1. …is just more shit-flinging by opportunists

            Sounds like an opportunity tailor made for you Ass Cork.

              1. It is, I think though that it can be improved by changing it to Ass Corky

          2. What you need to do is find specific language in the statute which gives the administration the discretion to take these *specific* actions, not just regulate dependents or whatever else irrelevant examples this guy gives.

            He gave one relevant example, I assume you can furnish the rest?

          3. Please show me in this document where Congress has the power to delegate power?

          4. Palin’s Buttplug|3.14.14 @ 4:14PM|#
            “It is very clear that congress gave the executive branch broad leeway in defining this “abstruse” law.”

            Uh, no, shitpile.
            It wasn’t “congress”; it was the D party, and it was famously qualified by someone almost as abysmally ignorant as you:
            “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”.
            Fuck you.

    2. Nobody’s arguing that the administration has no rule-making authority, Plugs.

      What people are concerned about is the President changing the law where he doesn’t have any rule-making authority.

  6. The single most desperate issue in this country is restoring the concept and the reality of limited government. Naturally, hardly anyone in politics talks about or addresses that issue at all, since the system doesn’t reward such talk.

    1. My suggestion is that we have a citizen jury that sits in judgement of each elected official when they apply for re-election. Their opponents act as prosecutors. Being stripped of your personal wealth, exiled for 10 years and forbidden from holding public office is the only sentence for misuse of elected office. After the first one, there would be a lot of people declining to run for re-election.

      1. I’m all for old-school ostracism for politicians.

      2. In China they execute officials who abuse public funds. We could use that here.

        1. But how will we convince the best and brightest to serve….?

          /progtard

    2. BUT CRIMEA!!!!111!!!!

      1. Yes, send them to the Crimea.

    3. Frankly, at this point, talking about limited government is beyond an absurdity. This struggle was lost before it even began and it is many orders of magnitude worse now than it was back then. The fact is, the only prospect of ever returning to anything like a limited government would involve burning the whole fucking thing to the ground. And nobody is going to want that. The other option just to wait until it collapses on its own. We’ll all likely be dead by then.

      1. I refuse to concede defeat to these statist morons. Things can get worse, you know.

        1. Things can get worse, you know.

          I suspect they will, unless there is some philosophical awakening throughout the country, I think we’re pretty much fucked.

          1. There are at least a few thousand of us, scattered around the country. Easily rounded up into camps. Libertarian camps!

            1. Hah! Jokes on them. Just wait until they try to organize us into various crews to run the ovens. Cat herding will seem easy in comparison to that.

    4. We tried limited government in the 19th century and everyone was orphaned and enslaved by monocle-wearing Robber Barons.

    5. The single most important issue in this country is hailing Xenu and acknowledging the reality of thetans.

      –A Scientologist

      (I may be off on the particulars of the religion.)

      1. (I may be off on the particulars of the religion.)

        As off putting as you and your beliefs are I’m sure the Scientologists will welcome you into their church.

        http://www.scientology.com/

      2. I was wondering when shit for brains Tony would show up on the site again.
        Resident progressive/socialist ass wipe

    6. There is no reality of limited government. It is a fantasy. Governments are incapable of protecting, or defending the rights of individuals that are freedom and liberty. Such an institution is built upon violence, lacking any voluntary means to keep it around. Anyone who peacefully would revoke their consent to be governed would be subjected to acts of aggression or violence.

      Anyone forced to work for the benefit of another is not free, but is a slave. Slavery is antithetical to freedom. So unless government is voluntary, and could not wield any power over individuals who do not consent to be governed, then one would have to accept the violence and enslavement that is government, and force others to be subjected to rule by violence, etc.

  7. You know who else promised not to do end-runs?

    1. Dirk Diggler?

    2. Pepto Bismol?

  8. Is The Independents on yet I’m bored LOL

  9. It’s so nice to have Mary back among the living. So very, very nice…

  10. Free WiFi at Arby’s is not an unalloyed good.

  11. It’s so good to see Republicans so deeply concerned with the proper implementation of the ACA (in between attempts to de-fund it).

    Fuck those psychopaths. Presidential power is tested and pushed back against routinely, and it’s not actually an impeachable offense in the event a president is overruled by the Supreme Court.

    I said this years ago. Republicans having absolutely no interest in governing, but only in harming Obama’s poll numbers and trying to oust him from office, will result in Obama exercising all the more executive authority. Somebody in government has to govern.

    1. It’s so good to see Republicans so deeply concerned with the proper implementation of the ACA (in between attempts to de-fund it).

      It’s so good to see Democrats so deeply concerned with the proper implementation of the ACA (despite constantly defending its virtues)

    2. I eagerly await Plugs’ and Tony’s full-throated defense of President Paul’s exercise of executive authority to suspend EPA enforcement activity, regardless of statutory mandates.

      Somebody in government has to govern.

      I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      1. I think the scary thing is it does mean what they think it means.

      2. The GOP threatened to destroy the global economy if they didn’t get their way on a small piece of domestic policy. Not even geniuses like the Founders can devise a functioning government being run by anarchists.

        1. A global economy that hinges on a small piece of domestic policy.

          The fact that you

          1. Believe that

          and

          2. Don’t find it to be a problem even if it were true

          is frightening. Frightening.

          But who am I kidding…

          Us: You know if you don’t stop, cities are going to start going bankrupt.

          Them: Fuck you, teafucker, that will never happen!

          *cities start going bankrupt*

          Us: Sooo, wanna revisit that policy?

          Them: Fuck you, teafucker! It’s all your fault. Full speed ahead!

        2. How was that going to happen exactly?

    3. Tony|3.14.14 @ 4:53PM|#
      “Fuck those psychopaths.”

      No, shitpile, fuck you with rusty power tools.

    4. I was wondering when shit for brains Tony would show up on the site again.
      Resident progressive/socialist ass wipe

  12. I said this years ago. Republicans having absolutely no interest in governing, but only in harming Obama’s poll numbers and trying to oust him from office, will result in Obama exercising all the more executive authority. Somebody in government has to govern.

    Yeah….damn straight Tony….

    Might I direct you haterz to Tonys impassioned video defense of the president……

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

    1. I’m saying it’s bad for the country for the president to be overstepping his authority and setting a precedent. Of course it’s probably even worse for the country for Congress to be minority-rule and for that minority to be composed of a bunch of buck-toothed sheepfucker nihilists.

      1. Good, Tony. Let the anger flow through you . . . .

      2. *runs out of room crying?*

      3. Tony|3.14.14 @ 5:22PM|#
        “I’m saying it’s bad for the country for the president to be overstepping his authority…”

        Anyone suffering your degree of ignorance would have no idea what that means.

      4. I was wondering when shit for brains Tony would show up on the site again.
        Resident progressive/socialist ass wipe

  13. I’m saying it’s bad for the country for the president to be overstepping his authority and setting a precedent.

    Indeed! Enjoy it when the next “buck-toothed sheepfucker nihilist” elected president from TEAM STUPID repays Sugar Covered Barry O’s precendent in spades……

    Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahah!

  14. Uh Oh….Chris make sad face! Tingle gone?

    http://downtrend.com/brian-car…..tbrain_RSS

  15. Republicans having absolutely no interest in governing, but only in harming Obama’s poll numbers and trying to oust him from office, will result in Obama exercising all the more executive authority. Somebody in government has to govern.

    Power. Executive power, not authority. Governing consists of legislating – making laws – and of executing – putting the laws into operation. If the legislature refuses to legislate, it does not mean that the executive is than free to do so on the grounds that “Congress refuses to act”. Refusing to act is an action.

    (It’s kind of like “God didn’t answer my prayer” – God did answer your prayer, he said ‘No’.)

    1. Refusing to act is action? Don’t tell sarc or sevo or whichever sheepophile has a problem with this concept.

      Agreed. I guess Congress is entitled to have an agenda consisting solely of trying not to piss off Rush Limbaugh, but what I’m saying is don’t be surprised if the remaining sane people in government start to push at the edges of their authority in order to accomplish something that isn’t a complete waste of everyone’s time.

      1. Tony|3.14.14 @ 6:54PM|#
        “Refusing to act is action? Don’t tell sarc or sevo or whichever sheepophile has a problem with this concept.”

        Well shitpeople, why not?

      2. I was wondering when shit for brains Tony would show up on the site again.
        Resident progressive/socialist ass wipe

  16. Are you (Reason) saying Mr. Obama lied to get into office??
    That’s never happened before ever!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.