7:01 AM, Jul 2, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
In the past week alone, President Obama has twice been rebuked by the Supreme Court for having run afoul of the Constitution (a 9-0 decision) or federal law (5-4). Unchastened, he brazenly picked the very day that the second decision was announced to reassert the Obama Doctrine — namely, that if Congress refuses to pass a political loser that Obama is championing, Obama will take the law into his own hands.
“President Barack Obama plans to take administrative actions in the coming months to address problems with the country's immigration policies, he said Monday, acknowledging that House Speaker John Boehner has made it clear that the House will not vote on reform legislation this year.
“‘I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue and Congress chooses to do nothing,’ Obama said in the Rose Garden. ‘And in this situation, the failure of the House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our economy’ and bad for the country.…
“The president summoned immigration advocates to the White House for a meeting before his speech, according to multiple sources who received invites — a meeting that was not listed on his public schedule.”
Politico adds that “Obama told the 15 or so advocates assembled at the meeting that he will examine all options within his constitutional powers” — Obama’s own conception of his constitutional powers, that is — “to relieve deportations of undocumented immigrants, and he also asked the advocates for their recommendations, according to one person who attended the meeting.”
The way one can tell that Obama is backing a political loser is this: If he weren’t — if the citizenry’s congressional representatives were obstinately refusing to do their will — the president would be confident that voters would rectify this situation in November and would return his own party to power (as was the case before he stubbornly pushed Obamacare). But no one expects voters to do this, and many if not most observers expect voters to install a Republican Senate through the upcoming election as well. Thus, Obama will act alone, in defiance of public will and — more importantly — of the constitutional separation of powers.
This is hardly the first time we’ve seen the Obama Doctrine in action, even on this particular issue. In the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama announced that he would no longer deport illegal immigrants under 30 years of age. This was pure lawlessness, even by his own earlier admission. When asked at a spring 2011 Univision town hall why he didn’t simply stop the deportation of young illegals via executive order, Obama replied:
“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books….Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws….There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”
7:02 AM, Jun 24, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
The IRS comissioner insists his agency did not break the law or relevant statutes. But under questioning by Rep. Trey Gowdy, the IRS commissioner also admitted that he doesn't know the law or the relevant statutes:
"You have already said, multiple times today, that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing," Gowdy said. "I want you to tell me: What criminal statutes you have evaluated?"
"I have not looked at any," the IRS commissioner admitted.
4:51 PM, Jun 13, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
If there is any realm of policy that the American Founders were most firmly committed to having be decided by the most representative branch — the Congress — it was presumably the realm of taxation. Those who wrote the Constitution were not content even to let the Senate initiate tax policy. Instead, Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution specifies, “All Bills for raising R
1:54 PM, Jun 5, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
Harry Reid on when the White House notified Congress of the Bergdahl-Taliban swap: "What difference does it make?"
A reporter asked, "How come it seems that you were the only one who got a heads-up the day before?"
Senate majority leader Reid answered, "I'm not sure I'm the only one. I mean, this is making a big deal over nothing. The whole deal, is it Friday or Saturday? What difference does it make? What difference does it make?"
1:05 PM, Jun 3, 2014 • By ADAM J. WHITE
From 2005 through 2008, legal scholars and Democratic politicians heaped relentless scorn upon the Bush administration for arguing that the president's constitutional commander-in-chief powers superseded statutes that might limit his discretion.
1:00 PM, May 13, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
Talking today with law enforcement officials at the White House, President Obama said changes to immigration law is necessary "for our safety and security."
"Our broken immigration system makes it harder for our law enforcement agencies to do their job," Obama said.
"Our system is not fair to workers, is not fair to businesses and and is not fair to law enforcement agencies."
Via the White House pool report:
9:45 AM, May 7, 2014 • By ADAM J. WHITE
This week, the Supreme Court affirmed a New York town council's tradition of beginning its meetings with a prayer. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court held, by a bare majority, that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause does not prohibit such prayers led by local clergymen, even when the prayers tend to be Christian.
7:05 AM, May 7, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
It is becoming increasingly apparent that President Obama’s notion of governance is that federal laws should be passed to cover as much of human life as possible, and that he should then decide which of those laws to enforce, when, and against whom.
8:02 AM, Apr 24, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
It is becoming increasingly hard to tell whether Obamacare is the law of the land, or just the law of the parts of the land that don’t reside in (or aren’t in the good graces of) the executive branch. One wonders: Is it really too much to expect an administration that championed the passage of a 2,700-page overhaul of American medicine to live by the same law it was so eager to impose on others?
12:33 PM, Mar 28, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
In school, a child who gets a 67 percent will generally get a D. But for Obamacare, 67 percent is apparently grounds for an A. Talk about grading on a curve.
Obamacare madness, Christmas edition.4:31 PM, Dec 20, 2013 • By JAMES C. CAPRETTA
The wrecking ball swung again toward the crumbling Obamacare edifice yesterday. Ironically, it continues to be the Obama administration that is operating the heavy machinery.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced, in the form of a letter to Democratic senators, that Obamacare’s individual mandate tax will be waived in 2014 for persons who had their policies canceled in 2013 due to Obamacare.
New legislation shows Congress and American public are united in their distrust of Obama's Iran deal.4:14 PM, Dec 19, 2013 • By LEE SMITH
A recent AP/GfK poll shows that a majority of Americans, 55 percent, disapprove of how Barack Obama is handling the Iran issue.
30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.1:49 PM, Dec 12, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.
11:31 AM, Nov 18, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
Democratic congressman Nick Rahall says he voted for the Keep Your Health Plan Act because President Obama's Obamacare fix lacked the "legal underpinning" he believes is necessary:
"Did you vote yes because you think that the president didn't go far enough?" a CBS reporter asked the congressman.
"I voted yes, perhaps that was part of the reason," said Rahall. "But the main reason was, I'm not sure he had the legal underpinning to do what he did."