by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
The Washington Post reports that a vote to sue President Obama for overreach of powers passed in the House. No Democrats supported the measure as well as 5 Republicans who also voted no.
Here’s where the mess begins. Most Americans are unaware of how the government actually works. Here’s all the nuances pertaining to Congressional and Executive power.
The Legislative branch, Congress, has the power to pass laws.
The Constitution does not grant specific permission for the Executive branch to issue executive orders.
Presidents have used Executive Orders to assist the officers of the Executive Branch (federal agencies) to carry out their duties.
In a court case in 1952, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 the Supreme Court ruled that an Executive Order issued by President Truman, which placed all steel mills in the country under federal authority, was “not valid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution”.
And more:
“The Youngstown decision was critical because it established a standard for the exercise of executive power. In his concurring opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson described three different situations and three corresponding levels of presidential authority:
The president acts with the most authority when he has the “express or implied” consent of Congress
The president has uncertain authority in situations where Congress has not imposed its authority — either by inaction or indifference — and the president takes advantage of this “zone of twilight” to make an executive decision
The president acts with the least authority when he issues an executive order that is “incompatible” with the expressed or implied will of Congress. Such an act, wrote Justice Jackson, threatens the “equilibrium established by our Constitutional system” [source: Contrubis]”
Executive Orders are not meant to create new laws. Nevertheless, Presidents have, in recent years, pushed the envelope in this matter, using “the executive order as an increasingly powerful political weapon, pushing through programs and regulations — often controversial in nature — without Congressional or judicial oversight [source: Savage]. Executive orders can be overruled by the courts or nullified by legislators after the fact, but until then they carry the full weight of federal and state law [source: Contrubis]”
Obama’s response to the lawsuit vote was this:
“They’re going to sue me for taking executive actions to help people. So they’re mad I’m doing my job. And by the way, I’ve told them I’d be happy to do it with you. The only reason I’m doing it on my own is because you’re [Congress] not doing anything,”
One could argue that Obama’s response magnifies the problem. Obama’s job is not to take “executive actions to help people”. His job, per the Constitution, is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. If Congress isn’t doing anything, that doesn’t mean the power to make laws, the Legislative Branch, is abrogated to the Executive Branch.
If Congress does not create and pass a particular law, it is because the people don’t will it. That is a free expression of Congress’s Constitutional power.
When the President says, “I have to act because Congress does not”, it can be argued that he violates the will of the people with a gross overreach of Executive authority.
Legal scholars have weighed in, suggesting that if Congress acts as one body with this lawsuit — in this case, the House passing the measure to sue — they will have decent Congressional standing from a legal perspective. Here’s more on how that works
Because this really has not been done before, it will likely take a long time to settle the matter. Stay tuned.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
One month ago (in June), the topic of immigration was at 5%.
Today? It’s 17%. According to a Gallup poll released a few days ago, immigration has surged to the top of the list as “the Most Important U.S. Problem”. This replaces “dissatisfaction with government” (16%).
Two other tidbits to glean from this poll: (1) the issue is higher among Republicans (23%) than Democrats (11%); and (2) older Americans (over 50) are more likely than younger Americans (under 50) to cite immigration as the top issue.
So, while this poll shows us what Americans are now talking about, even more importantly is what they aren’t talking about anymore — major scandals such as those involving the IRS, the VA, and even the situation in Iraq, among others (most of those can probably be filed under “dissatisfaction with government”).
The IRS and VA scandals are particularly scathing to the administration. Is it any wonder why, at the very time when the heat began to turn up on these two issues, the immigration surge began. Those very demographics — Republicans and older Americans — who are most likely to be incensed at the IRS and VA scandals are now the ones even more incensed at the immigration issue…so that they are no longer focused on the IRS and VA.
The poll concluded: “the fact that the issue is of particular concern to Republicans and older Americans — both groups that Republicans need to turn out in force in the midterms — could be critical to the outcome.”
The poll is likely correct, but in a different sort of way. Even the IRS scandal and the VA scandal made many Democrats squirm as well as Republicans, so there was no way to pit one group against the other for political gain. With the immigration surge, however, it is a bit more partisan, and creates a better opportunity for the Democrats to target the Republicans on this issue (and vice versa) — precisely in time for election season.
In fact, the Washington Times noted last week,
“Perhaps one particular decision by the White House highlights how concerned the administration is about public reaction: As of now, not a single illegal-alien detainee seems to have been sent to Louisiana or Arkansas, the states bordering Texas that are closest to the site of the border deluge. This is no accident. Those two states have Democratic senators up for re-election who are vulnerable enough to lose, but who might still be able to prevail. The White House appears to have decided not to send any illegals there to avoid the potential for political damage.”
The White House is keenly aware of not “letting this crisis go to waste”. They have carefully chosen not to send immigrants to states with vulnerable Democrat elections so that they will avoid arousing the Republican/elderly electorate on Election Day.
On the other hand, those who are concerned about the immigrant surge are already being painted as “anti-children”, “heartless”, etc. Those sentiments are certain to be repeated during the election cycle.
At least one group thinks that this crisis is contrived. The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), which issued a statement in early June, essentially stating that surge of immigrants, including minors, crossing our border “is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes.”
The immigration surge is less about immigration than it is about deflection. If the Obama Administration can have a large part of the electorate — especially Republicans and elderly — refocus on something big other than the IRS scandal, VA scandal, and more, then they can be out of scrutiny on those particularly damning issues for at least the time being.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA
It is really obvious to see that Ben Bernanke was not an independent Fed Chair, but just a lackey for President Obama. Though his responsibility was monetary policy, he was often asked why – despite the most stimulative monetary policy possible – the economy has shown the worst recovery, by far, since the Great Depression more than 80 years ago.
As a student of the Great Depression, Mr. Bernanke was fully aware of the disastrous policies of FDR that impeded the recovery – large tax increases, burdensome regulation, anti-business government programs, and overboard support of union labor- and that President Obama followed suit in every particular.
And yet not a word from Mr. Bernanke that these policies should be questioned. You might be able to say that the President didn’t know any better – you cannot say that about Mr. Bernanke.
I find Mr. Bernanke’s failure to address the exploding Obama regulatory excesses particularly inexcusable. The effect of new regulations from the EPA, NLRB, ObamaCare, Dodd Frank, etc., etc. clearly serves to curtail expansion plans, absorb capital that otherwise would have been used for growth, and increase the costs of starting a new business (clearly scuttling some). At least some meaningful portion of our scrawny recovery can be explained by this regulatory environment.
As Chair of the (supposedly) independent Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke owed it to the American people to speak out. This failure should be long-remembered.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA
The folks over at CNSNews reported that, according to the US Treasury, Public Debt has increased $6.666 Trillion during Obama’s Presidency.
The amount of debt listed on January 20, 2009 was compared to the amount of debt held January 31, 2014 — the most current day available. Those figures are $10,626,877,048,913.08 and $17,293,019,654,983.61, respectively.
That means the total amount of debt has gone up $6,666,142,606,070.53 under President Obama.
To put it into perspective, public debt first reached $6.666 trillion in July, 2003. CNSNews notes that in slightly more than 5 years, “the U.S. has accumulated as much new debt as it did in it’s first 227 years”.
Now, to make an entirely different comparision:
The public debt held by George W. Bush on the first day of his inauguration (Jan 20, 2001) was $5,727,776,738,304.64. On his last day full day in office, Jan 19, 2009, the debt was $10,628,881,485,510.23.
Therefore, debt during his 8 years increased $4.901 Trillion. One could also argue that debt went up some 85% during his term.
On the other hand, so far, Obama’s debt so far has increased 63% over 5 years.
If one were to take 85% and divide it by 8 years , one would find the average rate of debt increase to be 10.625% a year under Bush. For Obama’s debt to only increase by the rate of Bush’s, Obama’s debt percentage increase would be 53.125%. But Obama’s is more, currently at 63% debt increase — more than a year ahead of the average pace of Bush.
Taking Obama’s current rate of debt increase, 63%, and dividing it by 5 years, the average rate of debt incrase by Obama is 12.5% per year. At that pace, by the time Obama’s Administration is complete after 8 years, the debt increase will be 100.8%.
That means we can expect our Public Debt to increase by at least $10.711 Trillion, or that our public debt will be roughly some $21.337 Trillion at the end of his term. (This is only at the current rate of spending and debt, without taking into account future programs, etc)
In other words, it will have only taken 233 years to spend the first $10 trillion and roughly 8 years to spend the second $10 trillion.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
As each day passes, the various facets of Obamacare are getting implemented in order to be fully operational by January 1, 2014. But we are hearing about the difficulties in the implementation caused primarily by either 1) the website fiasco; 2) low number of enrollees; and 3) people wanting to pay the penalties in order to avoid having to pay for intentionally overpriced health “insurance”.
In order to achieve adequate and targeted enrollment in Obamacare those representing the Government have begun to be aggressive. They are choosing to use all methods at their disposal to pressure, cajole, and otherwise push people to “do the right thing” and buy the mandated insurance product. This began in earnest last spring, as the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was given millions at her disposal to dispatch “navigators” and “in-person assisters” to help enroll more Americans into Obamacare. But the very act of doing so may be rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.
It is worthwhile to remember that the only way in which the law of Obamacare was saved from being declared unconstitutional was the that that there is no penalty associated with Obamacare, which would have made it subject to the Commerce Clause. It was ruled to be a “tax” derived from not purchasing the mandated health coverage. In reaching his conclusion, Justice Roberts accepted the Administration’s argued position that there is absolutely no negative interference whatsoever on anyone opting to pay the “tax” rather than buy the product.
Therefore, any attempt by the administration or any of the implementing bodies to pressure, threaten or even imply some sort of wrongdoing by those choosing to not buy insurance would be clearly unconstitutional.
If those implementing Obamacare are properly following the Supreme Court’s mandate, they should be telling prospective insurance purchasers that they should be deciding for themselves whether they would be better off with the insurance or the penalty. We know this is not happening. At the macro level, governors have been hustled to implement the exchanges in their states. And at the individual level, Obamacare officials are pushing for more enrollees to ensure a steady flow of premiums paid by healthy patients in order to cover those who are high-risk and high-cost.
Just a few recent examples:
1) The LGBT Community created an Out2Enroll campaign to encourage LGBT to enroll in Obamacare after “the Obama administration called a meeting of LGBT leaders in mid-September. Nearly 200 from across the country met with the White House to talk about the potential impact of Obamacare. It also looked at what LGBT leaders could do to spread the word.”
2) Latinos with green cards were pushed to enroll in Obamacare at a recent forum marketed on the Get Covered America website. “Get Covered America is the nonprofit publicity and recruitment arm of “Enroll America,” which aims to ‘maximize the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act,’ according to its website”. Enroll America also has people going door-to-door with clipboards to sign people up, according to the Washington Post.
3) Hollywood celebrities teamed up with the White House to learn how to help shill for Obamacare. “Back in July, a group of Hollywood stars gathered at the White House to strategize a push for registration after the October 1 rollout of the Affordable Care Act. Among others, Amy Poehler, Jennifer Hudson, Kal Penn, and representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, and the Funny or Die team offered their influence during a meeting with senior aide Valerie Jarrett and, briefly, President Obama himself”.
4) Government-funded Navigator Grants are setting up neighborhood centers for Obamacare enrollment. According to this story about a center with ties to former ACORN execs, “The government has given out $67 million in Navigator grants to help with the controversial rollout of ObamaCare. It was not clear if Local 100 got a grant of its own, but it has set up a help center with Southern United Neighborhoods, a charity founded in March 2010 with many former ACORN members, to enroll people in ObamaCare. Southern United Neighborhoods received a Navigator grant of $486,123”
5) The White House kicked off a 6 month ad campaign a week before the October 1 starting sign-up date. The objective of the ad blitz is “to encourage millions of Americans to sign up for health coverage under ‘Obamacare’ an effort in which the president and other political celebrities promote the law’s promise of subsidized health coverage”.
Are these government-backed and/or funded pushes to enroll in Obamacare violating the constitutionality of Obamacare with regard to negative interference?
The SCOTUS ruling hinged on the government not implying that people are doing anything wrong by not signing up. It is a tax that citizens are allowed to pay in lieu of enrollment. But with such a massive effort touting Obamacare, the government is directly interfering in the choice. There is no neutrality. It amounts to coercion, and creates the implication that by not enrolling, citizens are doing a bad thing. Does this contradict the Supreme Court decision?
