January 14, 2014

Obama Promises to Violate Constitution

Print Friendly and PDF

Today the President once again promised to “act” without Congress.


According to CNN’s Jim Acosta, Obama told his Cabinet, “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

There were no phones in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, so I need not break out my pocket Constitution to be 100% certain there is absolutely no provision in the entirety of the Constitution for the President to use a phone to bypass the constitutional process commonly known as law making.

And the only Constitutional law making power given to his precious pen is to either sign or veto a law adopted by CONGRESS, not his lobby friends (Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2).

Has this faux “constitutional law professor” ever even read the document?

I'm Just a BillEven the least educated American from my generation that grew up watching Schoolhouse Rocks on Saturday morning knows that the little fellow named “Bill” was born in Congress and approved by Congress before the President ever had a say.

Gee, I wonder why the founding fathers preferred such a difficult and time consuming process? Didn’t they know there would be gridlock and deal making and back scratching and back stabbing, delays and abuse? If they were so smart, why did they not create a much easier, seamless process and just give the President the power of the stroke of a pen to do whatever he though best for the people?

Why not forget all that debating and citizen input? Let’s just leave it to the savior in the White House who just simply wants to help the people.

The thirty-nine men who signed the Constitution had good reason for not wanting one person to be able to make law. They quoted Jeremiah 17:9 as the ultimate reason. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?”

Our Founders were students of history. They knew the abuses of kings, even those of King George who had many limitations with Parliament, but still managed to give us 27 reasons to declare our independence.

They knew the constitutional republic they created had flaws and would have difficulties. But they also knew that deliberation, debate, and citizen input were essential to freedom. Would that sometimes lead to gridlock? Yes. But much better to have gridlock than tyranny.


Ameritopia by Mark LevinAs Mark Levin so aptly explains in Ameritopia, the founders were heavily influenced on this subject by John Locke. Locke repudiated Thomas Hobbes’s notion of an omnipotent Sovereign, as well as the philosopher-kings in Plato’s Republic: “For he that thinks absolute power purifies men’s blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age, to be convinced to the contrary.”

America’s founders did exactly that. They read, they were convinced, and they designed a nation where laws were made by the representatives of the people and never by one person. Hamilton expounds on the limitations of the president in the Federalist Papers, particularly #69.

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton

Speaking of Federalist #69, Hamilton takes time there to over-emphasis the limited appointment power of the President and the importance of the Senate being able to approve those appointments. I do hope the Supreme Court considers this when deciding the case heard yesterday with regard to Obama’s blatant disregard for yet another Constitutional provision: recess appointments.

The intent of the founders was obvious. Congress only met for a few weeks a year, so when they were gone for months at a time and a vacancy occurred, the President could temporarily appoint a replacement to the open position. But even the liberal Supreme Court Justices scoffed at Obama’s “recess appointments” made when the Senate was not even in recess. Whether they have the courage to slap his hand remains to be seen.

I personally think he needs much more than a hand slap. How many violations of the Constitution will be allowed before he is slapped with Articles of Impeachment?

Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution and sometimes that requires the removal of an official who is trampling the document before our very eyes. This president continues to violate his Article 2, Section 1 Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He has reversed law, created law, ignored law, and abused his powers so many times that I have lost count. And now, today, he has once again promised to ignore the constitutional process and ignore the representatives of the people.

His remarks today reveal a stunning disdain for our Constitution and it is time for Congress to hold him responsible for both his words and his actions.

I realize the liberal Harry Reid Senate would never convict him on impeachment charges. But as long as Congress sanctions his actions through silence, we slide further and further down the road to the very tyranny we declared independence from nearly 237 years ago.

Constitution class rick green

For more in depth teaching on these and many more Constitutional principles, check out Rick’s CONSTITUTION ALIVE! course recorded at Independence Hall in the very room where the Constitution was framed.

Print Friendly and PDF
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Richie


    • John

      Back to what?

      • fedup

        I’ll settle for normalcy.

        All money bills originating in the House, for example.

        Executive orders merely as explanatory guidance for implementing the Laws that Congress passed and the President signed.

        Actual enforcement of existing law.

        It’s not too much to ask for is it?

        • boone1

          Well john must have come from another plant so he doesn’t know what back to what was.

  • John
  • MarkSebree

    The reason that the House has not tried to impeach President Obama is very simple, but still likely to be beyond your comprehension. President Obama has not committed any impeachable acts. He was not required to defend the DOMA in court, he was just required to enforce it, which he did. Every recent President has declined to defend a handful of laws that were challenged in the US Supreme Court. Just as every President has issued executive orders. And if the Republicans in the Senate had not been obstructing the Senate and preventing them from doing their Constitutional duty to vote on Presidential appointments, the small number of recess appointments that Obama has made would not have been necessary. By the way, that number is in the 30’s, while the last several Presidents made several times as many recess appointments.

    Also, a decade ago some of those Republican Senators, as part of a deal with the Democrats to get a small number of extremist, partisan, far right judges to the floor for a vote, promised that if the next President was a Democrat, they would vote against filibustering his candidates and support all his candidates getting an up/down vote. They broke that promise as soon as Obama was elected.

    • Linor

      I do not think that is the reason why Congress does not want to start the Impeachment proceedings. The senate is controlled by the Democrats. Do you think Harry Reid would be impartial and just sits down there and listen to the arguments?

      • fedup

        Let’s hope the Senate goes Republican in November. It’s looking very possible unless we shoot ourselves in the foot–Again.

        • MarkSebree

          Even better for America is if the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and majority in the House, so work could get done improving the USA more, and undoing the harm the Republicans cause to the American people.

          • http://www.markmccandlish.com/ Mark McCandlish

            And by “get done improving the USA” I’m sure you mean full implementation of the Communist Manifesto, because that’s where the “Progressives” are going one little step at a time. But you haven’t figured that one out yet have you? Ever been inside a communist country, Mark? I have. They live in fear. Even good people with nothing to hide. Have to think in politically correct terms don’t you know. Ready for that? How about I buy you a one-way ticket to Russia?

          • MarkSebree

            Sorry, but I don’t speak Russian. These days, the overly-religious nature of their society would more suit people like you.

            Progressives are not working to implement the Communist Manifesto. That is a lie that the far right pundits like to use since it is still a scary turn to many of their older and less educated listeners. And despite the views of the religious right and the plutocrats, socialism is NOT a negative concept when pursued intelligently and in moderation.

            What I am more worried about is the theocratic and fascist leanings of the far right. These are the people that want to dismantle our Constitution under the guise of religion, and put in place their version of Sharia’s Laws. Don’t believe me? Take a look at this link of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism, and see how many are espoused by the Republicans, and especially the tea partiers.


          • fedup

            So you admit you are a socialist. There isn’t much more to say.

          • fedup

            It looks like they got the internet working at the asylum again. Are you seriously thinking that the Democrats can pick up 17 or 18 seats in the House? With all of the added Obamacare consequences that will be landing on the low interest, low info voters, it will be hard for the Democrats to hold the seats they have. There’s a good chance they will lose the Senate. Check the polling data. Not good for the Dems.

          • MarkSebree

            Well, since you are on, I assume that the internet is working at the asylum. Never been there myself, however.

            There is a reasonably chance of the Democrats gaining at least that many seats, especially if the Republicans keep acting the way that they have been.

            The Obamacare consequences will indeed be landing on the low interest, low info Republican voters, and they will be wondering why their representatives keep trying to defund it. You seem to forget, national health care was a Republican campaign point before Obama became elected.

            It will be harder for the Republicans to hold their seats. They are the ones that present themselves as uncaring, out of touch, and misogynistic. The polling data shows that the Republicans are in generally worse shape than the Democrats. And if the Republicans pull any more seriously boneheaded stunts and make more irrational statements, which they are pretty much guaranteed to do, they will make themselves look worse and worse. Their insistence on nominating extremists does not help matters either.

          • fedup

            Mark, you are deceiving yourself. Democrats are running from Obamacare and when premiums aren’t $2500 cheaper, your wife can’t keep her gynecologist and you see your deductibles and copays go way up, the lie will hit home. It will hit people in the wallet and that always gets peoples attention.
            Dream on and have them check the dosages on your meds. For your own good.

          • MarkSebree

            Sorry, but since I am not a conservative, an evangelical, a creationist, a climate change denier, or a republican, I do not see how I am deceiving myself or anyone else.

            My insurance is under my work, and it pretty much goes up every year. I did not see anything from a reputable source that said that premiums would be “$2500 cheaper”. Sounds like you believed a republican politician or pundit for that claim.

            My meds to not affect my perceptions, and certainly don’t make me delusional, especially no delusional enough to be a republican.

          • fedup

            Read the broken promises here;


            I saw video of the One himself saying the average family would save $2500, I’m not going to spend time finding it. You are too far invested in Obama to admit any flaw. Remain delusional.

          • MarkSebree

            Do you have a reputable, neutral source? The Heritage Foundation is a known far right wing group, one of the groups that has been lying about President Obama since day one.

            Also, EVERY President has ended up breaking some of his campaign promises. Part of this is because of the realities of the situations that were not known or evident at the time, and part of it is because he cannot sign in laws bills that do not get through Congress. It is his record as a whole that needs to be examined, and which promises he kept, which he could not because it was not his choice, which he chose not to keep, and how significant each was.

          • fedup

            Try to explain it as you may, the facts speak for themselves. You are so blinded by your idol worship that you refuse to believe the lies right before your eyes.
            Perhaps Obama should have read it before he signed it, perhaps the democrats, should have read it before they passed it.
            And I’m glad you can keep your doctor, your plan and that your employer can pay the increase in your premiums instead of investing that money in the business, or in increasing your salary.

          • MarkSebree

            Who says that my employer doesn’t increase my salary, or invest it the business? You certainly have no clue. And if they are not investing it in the business, then why has the company grown several times it’s size from 5 years ago when I started?

            I am saying that Heritage Foundation is not known for publishing the facts, or they do not provide all the facts. That is why I asked you for a reputable, neutral source. I have no reason to trust anything that they publish, and anything that they publish needs to be taken with a few pounds of salt. If their statements are accurate, then I am sure that you can provide reputable, independent verification of what the Heritage Foundation claims.

            Unlike you, I am not blind at all. I am constantly looking for independent facts and sources to support opinions. And the ACA was read before it was passed. It showed that many of the Republican claims about it were lies. And the Republicans were given plenty of opportunity to offer a plan of their own, or to provide CONSTRUCTIVE amendments to it. They did not even attempt to do so.

            It is time for you to open your own eyes, and stop looking at the world through your tea party lenses, and start looking at the world as it really is.

    • pnyikos

      I think you got your facts in the last paragraph wrong. As I recall it, this bipartisan group of senators agreed some, but not all, of the nominees filibustered by the Democrats would come to the floor for a vote. A blanket promise not to filibuster any of the nominees of a future Democratic President certainly doesn’t ring a bell. Do you have any documentation you can provide?

      If there was such a promise, why didn’t Harry Reid hold them to it instead of ramming the “nuclear option” through the Senate?

      • MarkSebree

        The second question first. The “nuclear option” was used because the Republicans have been obstructing and preventing the business of the US Senate from the day that President Obama was sworn in. They have filibustered virtually every executive and judicial nomination that he has made, and for no other reason that he made those nominations. That includes nominees that were eventually affirmed with 90+ votes, as well as nominees who were nominated by Republican Senators. They have also been using procedural delays in the Judiciary committees to prevent and extend hearings on nominees. The Senate Minority leader has been recorded stating that whomever is nominated will be filibustered before the nominee was given to the Judiciary committee. Such blatant, unreasoning, uncompromising, partisan tactics are why, after almost 5 years, the “nuclear option” was started.

        And unlike you, I have checked my facts. On the first question, the name of the group was the “Gang of 14″. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14 in 2005, the democrats were filibustering 10 far right appellate court nominees by Bush. (Note: during Obama’s administration, the Republicans have filibustered many times this number) The Republicans were threatening to use the nuclear option because of this small number of filibusters.

        “The group’s members also agreed that they would oppose attempts to filibuster future judicial nominees except under ‘extraordinary circumstances.’
        What would constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ was not defined.”


        “The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under “extraordinary circumstances.” Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee’s philosophical views cannot amount to “extraordinary circumstances” and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.”

        Given their actions, I would say that the Republican Senators meant that if a Democratic President was elected, especially a black Democrat President, then all bets were off.

    • fedup

      I don’t think you can give me a single example of any President from either party that thought he could decide for himself when the Senate was or wasn’t in recess.
      It amounts to usurpation of authority(that may be sufficient, but maybe not), because he can’t have his way ,just as he wants it, when he wants it.

      Remember, he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling-ARROGANCE writ large. Don’t all money bills (ALL things involving the currency) have to arise from the House? That’s how I read it. And if the House says we will increase the Debt Limit under circumstances a,b,c, etc, Isn’t it within its’ rights as a Full Member of the three branches of our government?

      Politics is not a very efficient business, and our form of governance may be even less efficient than others. That’s by design. Do you recall the concept of “Checks and Balances”?

      • MarkSebree

        President Obama would not negotiate about the debt ceiling (a vote was was mostly procedural before his administration and Republican obstructionism) when the Republicans were holding the country hostage. That is not arrogance, that is preserving the power of his office against people that were little better than terrorists. A better question would be why the House Republicans REFUSED to negotiate a budget for MONTHS before the October deadline. The Senate had voted on and submitted a budget to the House in March, long before the due date. The House refused to act.

        I understand the concept of “Checks and Balances” probably better than you do. Tea Party Republican politicians, however, don’t care about this concept. They want complete control, which would be detrimental to the people of the USA.

        The Tea Party “republicans” were making unreasonable demands and, as is their usual practice, trying to insert harmful amendments into legislation where it did not belong. They refuse to compromise, they refuse to be reasonable. They do not belong in the government at all.

        • fedup

          Let me address your points one by one.
          You say that raising the debt limit was usually simply a procedural vote. In the past we didn’t have trillion dollar deficits as the norm either. I will agree that the House was not forceful enough in having the Senate consider any budget from the House. As I read the Constitution, ALL money bills, including the dozen or so Appropriations Bills, are to originate in the House – NOT the Senate. And it does take two partners to negotiate. Harry Reid is not interested in accommodating any Republican proposals, amendments, or ideas. The idea of another continuing resolution was just fine with Harry.

          As for the President not negotiating on the debt limit “to preserve the power of his office”, I find that laughable. He is to execute the laws that the Congress passes (at least that is what he is supposed to do), including authorizing debt. Only the House has the ability to originate Bills involving money. You will have to give me a better description of ‘terrorists’. The way you are using (actually misusing) it can only be the result of too much of the OBAMA Kool-Aid. There are so many easily foreseeable problems with Obamacarethat the Republicans tried to remedy, including a one year delay. Doesn’t seem like such a bad idea now, does it?

          Complete control! Harry Reid is in the dictionary next to the entry for the term ‘Complete Control’.

  • crustyone

    This egotistical joker has delivered a substandard job at best which does not serve whom he represents. Congress should promise to force him out of office. He and his family should start packing their personal crap cluttering the White House so their departure will be as quick as possible.

    • boone1

      He represents the muslim and blacks only and the down under club.

  • http://www.markmccandlish.com/ Mark McCandlish

    Okay… That does it! Time for a military coup. Firing squads at sun-up.

    • fedup

      Where do we muster?

  • fedup

    We have to take the Senate and then we need 60 votes to remove him. I would still like to see Impeachment proceedings emanate from the house though Realistically we can only stop the bleeding until we regain the White House. Let’s hope the Republic lasts that long.

  • jimof ct

    Once again the initiation of Impeachment proceedings is necessary even if the Senate will not convict. Obama and the media must be forced to face the charges and have to make a defense. When doing so they will also be less likely to continue the practices that ignore the Constitutional limits on the President.
    It is encouraging to see the beginnings of articles making the case for action on impeachment in order to constrain Obama whether likely to see the current Senate refuse to do what is right.
    Unfortunately, I believe the current politicians in Washington will not act even after the Senate has a Republican majority. We have far to many RINO “progressive” Republican incumbents in Congress. Hopefully, we will begin to see an end to this situation in 2014 and it will become less true in elections thereafter.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    According to Rick Green, legislation is the job of Congress or the Constitutional Republic’s legislative branch. If this is true, how does this comport with Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 that declare there is only ONE lawgiver–Yahweh, God of the Bible? And isn’t it because the framers usurped this legislative power, giving it to fickle men (regardless whether to a president, senators and representatives, or judges) that has gotten America into the mess she finds herself in today?

    Everyone seems to be concerned with Obama’s usurpation of power from the Republic’s legislative branch when, it seems to me, that, as Christians, we should be much more concerned with the framers’ and consequently the legislative branch’s usurpation of Yahweh’s exclusive legislative authority. In other words, that the framers violated the Bible is much more consequential than Obama violating the Constitution.

    For more on this, see free online Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 4.