Why Should Obama Be Bound By The US Constitution? (Reader Post)

By 764 Comments 5,536 views

delays

“… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …[.]” That phrase comes directly from the US Constitution, Article II, Section 3. The “he” refers to the president of the United States. This phrase leaves no wiggle room, no personal discretion or interpretation, no “way out” if a law that has been passed by Congress, but it’s not ready to or
can’t be implemented. It must be faithfully executed. Yet ignoring what is in the US Constitution is exactly what has recently happened with the employer mandate portion of the abomination that is the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare. And what is currently going on.

You remember, the bill that had to be passed in order for us to see what was/is in it. You know, the scheme that has been sooooooooooo successful lately – at spending taxpayer money, not at enrolling citiens.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said about ObamaCare in August 2013:

This is no longer a political debate; this is what we call the law. It was passed and signed three years ago. It was upheld by the Supreme Court a year ago. The president was re-elected. This is the law of the land.

Section 1513(d) of the Affordable Care Act states that “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

Employer mandate implementation is now proposed to be delayed until 2015, after the 2014 mid-term elections. White House political hacks David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett are defending the delay. Axelrod said:

[Obama’s] ‘view is that we ought to plow forward, make sure this can work, and we’re going to look back at it [the delay], and it’s going to be our proudest accomplishment’.

Jarrett wrote:

We have heard the concern that the reporting called for under the law about each worker’s access to and enrollment in health insurance requires new data collection systems and coordination. So we plan to re-vamp and simplify the reporting process. [emphasis mine]

I guess it would be unreasonable to expect Sebelius and Axelrod and Jarrett to read, understand, and follow the US Constitution.

Obama administration officials said that other aspects of the law won’t be delayed. But guess what! Although the federally-run small business mandate marketplaces started October 1, small businesses won’t be able to enroll online until November.

Regarding the law of the land, Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell wrote:

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.   [emphases in the original]

[McConnell continued:] The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the president on legal and constitutional issues, has repeatedly opined that the president may decline to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional. But these opinions have always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to ‘refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons‘.   [emphasis mine]

[McConnell continued:] Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president’s unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects. As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress ‘would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice’.

The Supreme Court, in 1998, struck down a congressional grant of line-item veto authority to the president to cancel spending items in appropriations. Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.”  [emphasis mine]

No less than Dr. Charles Krauthammer agrees. On The O’Reilly Factor, Krauthammer said
that “… the postponement of certain provisions of the law – including the delay until 2015 of the requirements that employers provide coverage to employees …” is unconstitutional.

As William Sullivan wrote about ObamaCare:

What we are seeing today is a late reaction to a century in which progressives thoroughly corrupted our purest ideals of individualism and liberty and transformed government’s role — without amending the Constitution to allow the government to usurp the power it seized.   [emphasis mine]

Where is the Department of Justice (DOJ) on this? It is, after all, responsible for the enforcement of the law of the land. DOJ is headed by an Obama appointee, that political hack Eric Holder. Holder must get Obama’s approval before using the bathroom, so ANY action Obama takes will be fine with Holder.

And, if a woman ever gets elected President, will Democrats argue that “she” is not bound by the US Constitution since it clearly states in Article II states that “he” has specific duties? Democrats will argue, like a certain past president, that it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. Will the US Supreme Court buy that argument? Let us pray that this situation will never arise.

764 Responses to “Why Should Obama Be Bound By The US Constitution? (Reader Post)”

  1. 751

    smrstrauss

    Re: “Hey Dipsy, it was his staff that said they had to go down to an office because his personal data wasn’t in the database.”

    Answer: His staff did do the data entry, just as they do a LOT of things for Obama, like carry his bags and shine his shoes.

    But Obama’s personal data WAS in the database. Only birther sites claimed that it wasn’t, and have not shown any evidence whatever.

    What would prove that his personal data was not in the database would be a quotation from a staff member that said “Obama’s personal data was not in the database”—but, guess what, there is NO such quotation. Perhaps you can convince people that Obama has no feet because his staff are shining his shoes—that is just as rational.

  2. 752

    ilovebeeswarzone

    smrstrauss
    HAPPY NEW YEAR,
    you know, it’s not that he has no shoes,
    it’s that he put his feet in the wrong sh’t puddle and get cold,
    dirty feet,
    all the time,

  3. 753

    Redteam

    @smrstrauss:

    But Obama’s personal data WAS in the database.

    Then why did his staff say it wasn’t. Talk to them, not me, they said it, I didn’t.

    just as they do a LOT of things for Obama, like carry his bags and shine his shoes.

    carry his water, kiss his butt, write his teleprompter notes. why did you shorten the list so?

    What would prove that his personal data was not in the database would be a quotation from a staff member that said “Obama’s personal data was not in the database”—

    It obviously wouldn’t prove it to you because that statement was made by his staff, you just choose to ignore it.

  4. 755

    Redteam

    @smrstrauss:

    Although Obama was involved in selecting a plan, he didn’t sign up himself. The president’s staff did that for him, going in person to the D.C. exchange over the weekend, the White House official said.

    “Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”

    Still, the White House official added, Obama “was pleased to participate in a plan as a show of support for these marketplaces which are providing quality, affordable health-care options to more than a million people.”

    You will note that this is from the Washington Post, the official newspaper for Obama.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/23/obama-signs-up-for-health-care-selects-bronze-plan-in-d-c-exchange/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

  5. 756

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Redteam
    what”s good for the geese is good for the gander,
    why is obama not signing his own plan,
    he is afraid of the lack of security there,
    and the people can sign and risk to loose their bank account,

  6. 757

    smrstrauss

    Re: ““As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”

    That does NOT say that Obama’s Social Security information or other information was not available, only that it was not “readily available.” When it was correctly entered, the system accepted Obama for Obamacare, meaning that his information was confirmed.

  7. 758

    Redteam

    @smrstrauss:

    When it was correctly entered, the system accepted Obama for Obamacare, meaning that his information was confirmed.

    I notice you didn’t provide a link to where you pulled that info from…

  8. 759

    Redteam

    @smrstrauss:You said:

    That does NOT say that Obama’s Social Security information or other information was not available,

    It said:

    As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available

    Soooo….. then you’re saying that his Social Security info was available, but……his personal information was not available. Then…… that means his Social Security info is NOT part of HIS personal information. By golly, I think you’ve stumbled onto something here.

  9. 760

    smrstrauss

    Re: “Then why did his staff say it wasn’t. Talk to them, not me, they said it, I didn’t.”

    NO, they didn’t say it. They did not say that at all. They said that it was not “readily available.”

    Moreover, that does NOT say that it was not in the database, only that it was difficult to enter data in order to access it. When they had entered the data, Obama was signed up for Obamacare. That means that the information was checked and is valid. You think, but you have no evidence for it, that they got Obama into Obamacare WITHOUT the information being checked by the system. But that is not what they said, and there is no evidence for it. It is just another birther lie.

  10. 761

    Redteam

    @smrstrauss: You said:

    They said that it was not “readily available.”

    and I quoted them:

    As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available

    see the last two words on both of those quotes? Is there a difference?

    the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available

    you said:

    Moreover, that does NOT say that it was not in the database, only that it was difficult to enter data in order to access it.

    Go to their statement and give me the quote that says

    only that it was difficult to enter data in order to access it.

    You are really struggling with your BAL, good luck and maybe the IPAB will approve treatment for that, even tho it would be a waste because it’s incurable.

    It is just another birther lie.

    There you go, knocking Hillary’s supporters again.

  11. 762

    mossomo

    @smrstrauss:

    “What would prove that his personal data was not in the database would be a quotation from a staff member that said “Obama’s personal data was not in the database”

    You are piece of work, a gift that keeps on giving.

    prove that his personal data

    My link: “The complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the White House said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *