24 thoughts on “Obama’s 2013 Constitution Violations”
7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments
It’s now a constitutional violation to make “outlandish” arguments before the Supreme Court?
That the best you got?
“That the best you got?”
Probably. At least until he checks in with Talking Points Memo and sees what the new party line on this is.
As Instapundit comments on this story, “The year isn’t over yet.”
When a “senior fellow in constitutional studies” labels making unpersuasive arguments as a constitutional violation, is there much point in looking at the other items on his list?
The funniest part is that he claims “It was hard to limit myself to 10 items.” “Outlandish Supreme Court arguments” did make his top-10, which says plenty about the ones that didn’t.
When a “senior fellow in constitutional studies” labels making unpersuasive arguments as a constitutional violation, is there much point in looking at the other items on his list?
In cases before the Supreme Court last year, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power. That posture led to unanimous losses in three very different areas of law: religious liberty (Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC), criminal procedure (U.S. v. Jones) and property rights (Sackett v. EPA).
[…]
[On Arizona v. U.S.] The three splits involved complicated statutory interpretation regarding pre-emption of state law by federal law. In the ruling on the fourth, however,not a single justice accepted the government’s theory that mere federal enforcement priorities — as opposed to laws or regulations — trumped state law.
The government argued that discretionary decisions not to enforce certain federal laws overrode parallel state laws that enforced those same laws. The unanimous Supreme Court rejected that breathtaking claim of “pre-emption by executive whim.”
[…]
First, in Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. U.S., the government tried to take property away from citizens without paying just compensation. It claimed that the Army Corps of Engineers’ periodic flooding of a wildlife preserve, causing severe damage, didn’t meet the criteria for compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Even though the Supreme Court has required the government to compensate property owners for temporary physical invasions and permanent flooding, the government argued that it could freely engage in temporary flooding.
[…]
Second, in Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission, the government argued that it can prosecute people regardless of any statutes of limitations. Over time, evidence can be corrupted or disappear, memories fade and companies dispose of records. The government, with all its investigative tools, has to bring charges within a reasonable time so that the justice system can operate effectively.
[…]
Finally, in PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the government tried to impose double taxation on a company that had paid a windfall tax in the U.K. The government argued that the Internal Revenue Code’s foreign-income-tax credit wasn’t available to the company because the U.K. statute considered the tax to be on profit rather than income. That contrary theory had already been rejected by lower courts in another case, but the government insisted on presenting it again.
I hope this is enough information to answer your question, Jim. It’s not that the arguments are unpersuasive, but that they are unpersuasive because they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Perhaps a constitutional law professor should be criticized for his outlandish claims before SCOTUS.
What is the excuse, that the constitutional law professor didn’t know about the constitution? He just now learned about it in the news…
I think what you are forgetting, Jim, Is that the Supreme Court’s time is limited – they cannot take every case that people would like them to see.
Wasting the SS’s time is a serious problem.
Does that mean you agree with the other nine?
No, it doesn’t.
No. 1-4 are administrative actions relating to Obamacare implementation. My recollection is that the White House produced legal arguments defending the legality of those steps. If you disagree, take them to court.
5 is a difference of opinion on the meaning of the statute, which is currently working its way through the courts. [The author mislabels his own item; it’s about subsidies, not penalties.]
6, alleged IRS misbehavior, isn’t a constitutional violation on Obama’s part, simply because no one has established any Obama connection to the actions in question. Not every federal misbehavior is Obama’s responsibility, not every misbehavior is criminal, and not every crime is a violation of the Constitution.
7 is ridiculous on its face.
8 and 10 are differences of legal opinion that are working their way through the courts. The fact that Republicans in Congress and the White House have different opinions is not in itself proof of a violation of the Constitution.
I don’t know anything about 9, the author doesn’t include a link, and I know better than to take him at his word. If a letter to the University of Montana about sexual abuse policies — a letter that I’m guessing Obama hasn’t even heard of — can make an Obama hater’s top 10 list of 2013 Constitutional malfeasance, Obama’s doing pretty well.
“5 is a difference of opinion on the meaning of the statute,”
Except the law doesn’t mean anything if it can be changed daily on the whims of the President. This is what we expect from dictators like Chavez and Castro, heroes of the Democrat party.
“6, alleged IRS misbehavior,”
There is nothing alleged about it. The IRS already said it took place. We don’t know if Obama gave the order, even though he did joke about it in 2009. We do know he and his administration have done everything possible to obstruct the investigation and let the behavior continue after being made aware of it in 2012. That shows culpability regardless of whether or not Obama ordered it.
“8 and 10 are differences of legal opinion that are working their way through the courts”
The courts already decided that Obama’s use of recess appointments for the NLRB were illegal. That one was a great example of how Democrats force everyone to play by one set of rules and exempt themselves from the same standard.
“I don’t know anything about 9… a letter that I’m guessing Obama hasn’t even heard of”
Obama is always simultaneously a genius knowing more about everything than anyone on his staff and never knowing anything that happens in his administration.
It was funny the other day when he gave his press conference and said he didn’t know anything about the problems with Obamacare despite weekly meetings with his staff about Obamacare. It was totally crazy. He literally said he is well informed because of all the meetings he has but also didn’t know anything.
I am surprised manipulating employment data before the 2010 and 2012 elections was left off the list.
I am surprised manipulating employment data before the 2010 and 2012 elections was left off the list.
I doubt the manipulation of economic numbers is even illegal much less unconstitutional.
As an example, consider the games that the US government plays with its budget. Nobody will go to jail for that.
I am surprised manipulating employment data before the 2010 and 2012 elections was left off the list.
I’m surprised too, given the quality of the list, but it’s worth remembering that said manipulation didn’t happen.
” but it’s worth remembering that said manipulation didn’t happen.”
It did happen. Whether or not the order came from Obama is the unknown.
You notice at the link the Obama administration claims it wasn’t systematic. The Obama administration has shown how trustworthy they are so we should believe them.
7 is ridiculous on its face?
We will let the court decide on the others, but to call 7 ridiculous is sheer arrogance. Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC is a perfect example.
Your self-righteousness outshines all of our snark.
No. 1-4 are administrative actions relating to Obamacare implementation. My recollection is that the White House produced legal arguments defending the legality of those steps. If you disagree, take them to court.
LOL That was the whole point about the outlandish legal arguments to SCOTUS. People have already taken the Administration to court several times, and the lawyer’s for the Administration “produced legal arguments defending the legality” and lost! 1-4 just haven’t advanced as far.
From True Grit:
Goudy: [cross-examining Rooster] How many men have you shot since you became a marshal, Mr. Cogburn?
Rooster Cogburn: I never shot nobody I didn’t have to.
Goudy: That was not the question. How many?
Rooster Cogburn: Uh… shot or killed?
Goudy: Oh, let’s restrict it to “killed” so we may have a manageable figure.
Apparently, the ATF ignoring the law was not something that stopped with Fast and Furious. It’d be nice if we had a president who did nothing more than ensure that federal agencies complied with the law.
Remember when Fast and Furious was going to be worse than Watergate for Obama? Those were the days….
Remember when Obama, Hillary, and company were using violence South of the border as justification for gun control North of the Border? How many innocent Mexicans had to die for Obama to get his talking points? Don’t you find it disgusting that Obama was running guns to cartels so he could use the violence to push for petty political causes?
If the press had done its job, it probably would have.
But the press is unbiased, isn’t it Jim?
The press loves a good scandal, and will even go out on a limb with untrustworthy sources if they think they can score a juicy scoop (see: 60 Minutes and Benghazi). But you need to start with more than wishful thinking.
The press loves a good scandal
Only when it’s about Republicans. They try to minimize coverage of or lie about them when it’s about a Democrat. Just like you.
2014 will see F&F in the courts again regarding Obama’s claim of executive privilege to withhold information from oversight investigators. Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress for refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
It isn’t surprising F&F didn’t get more traction when government agencies actively thwart any efforts at oversight and accountability, especially when these actions come from Obama and Eric Holder.
Don’t forget the emails that showed the political intent behind the program. It wasn’t just a few rogue agents as claimed. Heck, it seems the entire government is made up of rogue agents these days.
7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments
It’s now a constitutional violation to make “outlandish” arguments before the Supreme Court?
That the best you got?
“That the best you got?”
Probably. At least until he checks in with Talking Points Memo and sees what the new party line on this is.
As Instapundit comments on this story, “The year isn’t over yet.”
When a “senior fellow in constitutional studies” labels making unpersuasive arguments as a constitutional violation, is there much point in looking at the other items on his list?
The funniest part is that he claims “It was hard to limit myself to 10 items.” “Outlandish Supreme Court arguments” did make his top-10, which says plenty about the ones that didn’t.
When a “senior fellow in constitutional studies” labels making unpersuasive arguments as a constitutional violation, is there much point in looking at the other items on his list?
What’s so hard to get here? Here’s an explanation.
I hope this is enough information to answer your question, Jim. It’s not that the arguments are unpersuasive, but that they are unpersuasive because they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Perhaps a constitutional law professor should be criticized for his outlandish claims before SCOTUS.
What is the excuse, that the constitutional law professor didn’t know about the constitution? He just now learned about it in the news…
I think what you are forgetting, Jim, Is that the Supreme Court’s time is limited – they cannot take every case that people would like them to see.
Wasting the SS’s time is a serious problem.
Does that mean you agree with the other nine?
No, it doesn’t.
No. 1-4 are administrative actions relating to Obamacare implementation. My recollection is that the White House produced legal arguments defending the legality of those steps. If you disagree, take them to court.
5 is a difference of opinion on the meaning of the statute, which is currently working its way through the courts. [The author mislabels his own item; it’s about subsidies, not penalties.]
6, alleged IRS misbehavior, isn’t a constitutional violation on Obama’s part, simply because no one has established any Obama connection to the actions in question. Not every federal misbehavior is Obama’s responsibility, not every misbehavior is criminal, and not every crime is a violation of the Constitution.
7 is ridiculous on its face.
8 and 10 are differences of legal opinion that are working their way through the courts. The fact that Republicans in Congress and the White House have different opinions is not in itself proof of a violation of the Constitution.
I don’t know anything about 9, the author doesn’t include a link, and I know better than to take him at his word. If a letter to the University of Montana about sexual abuse policies — a letter that I’m guessing Obama hasn’t even heard of — can make an Obama hater’s top 10 list of 2013 Constitutional malfeasance, Obama’s doing pretty well.
“5 is a difference of opinion on the meaning of the statute,”
Except the law doesn’t mean anything if it can be changed daily on the whims of the President. This is what we expect from dictators like Chavez and Castro, heroes of the Democrat party.
“6, alleged IRS misbehavior,”
There is nothing alleged about it. The IRS already said it took place. We don’t know if Obama gave the order, even though he did joke about it in 2009. We do know he and his administration have done everything possible to obstruct the investigation and let the behavior continue after being made aware of it in 2012. That shows culpability regardless of whether or not Obama ordered it.
“8 and 10 are differences of legal opinion that are working their way through the courts”
The courts already decided that Obama’s use of recess appointments for the NLRB were illegal. That one was a great example of how Democrats force everyone to play by one set of rules and exempt themselves from the same standard.
“I don’t know anything about 9… a letter that I’m guessing Obama hasn’t even heard of”
Obama is always simultaneously a genius knowing more about everything than anyone on his staff and never knowing anything that happens in his administration.
It was funny the other day when he gave his press conference and said he didn’t know anything about the problems with Obamacare despite weekly meetings with his staff about Obamacare. It was totally crazy. He literally said he is well informed because of all the meetings he has but also didn’t know anything.
I am surprised manipulating employment data before the 2010 and 2012 elections was left off the list.
I am surprised manipulating employment data before the 2010 and 2012 elections was left off the list.
I doubt the manipulation of economic numbers is even illegal much less unconstitutional.
As an example, consider the games that the US government plays with its budget. Nobody will go to jail for that.
I am surprised manipulating employment data before the 2010 and 2012 elections was left off the list.
I’m surprised too, given the quality of the list, but it’s worth remembering that said manipulation didn’t happen.
” but it’s worth remembering that said manipulation didn’t happen.”
It did happen. Whether or not the order came from Obama is the unknown.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/11/19/census-jobs-data-manipulation/3645819/
You notice at the link the Obama administration claims it wasn’t systematic. The Obama administration has shown how trustworthy they are so we should believe them.
7 is ridiculous on its face?
We will let the court decide on the others, but to call 7 ridiculous is sheer arrogance. Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC is a perfect example.
Your self-righteousness outshines all of our snark.
No. 1-4 are administrative actions relating to Obamacare implementation. My recollection is that the White House produced legal arguments defending the legality of those steps. If you disagree, take them to court.
LOL That was the whole point about the outlandish legal arguments to SCOTUS. People have already taken the Administration to court several times, and the lawyer’s for the Administration “produced legal arguments defending the legality” and lost! 1-4 just haven’t advanced as far.
From True Grit:
Did you hear about this fun new development at the ATF?
http://jsonline.com/more/news/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html
Apparently, the ATF ignoring the law was not something that stopped with Fast and Furious. It’d be nice if we had a president who did nothing more than ensure that federal agencies complied with the law.
Remember when Fast and Furious was going to be worse than Watergate for Obama? Those were the days….
Remember when Obama, Hillary, and company were using violence South of the border as justification for gun control North of the Border? How many innocent Mexicans had to die for Obama to get his talking points? Don’t you find it disgusting that Obama was running guns to cartels so he could use the violence to push for petty political causes?
If the press had done its job, it probably would have.
But the press is unbiased, isn’t it Jim?
The press loves a good scandal, and will even go out on a limb with untrustworthy sources if they think they can score a juicy scoop (see: 60 Minutes and Benghazi). But you need to start with more than wishful thinking.
The press loves a good scandal
Only when it’s about Republicans. They try to minimize coverage of or lie about them when it’s about a Democrat. Just like you.
2014 will see F&F in the courts again regarding Obama’s claim of executive privilege to withhold information from oversight investigators. Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress for refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
It isn’t surprising F&F didn’t get more traction when government agencies actively thwart any efforts at oversight and accountability, especially when these actions come from Obama and Eric Holder.
Don’t forget the emails that showed the political intent behind the program. It wasn’t just a few rogue agents as claimed. Heck, it seems the entire government is made up of rogue agents these days.