By M. Northrup Buechner
[This article was originally published on line by Forbes.com on November 18, 2013, with the title “Obama’s Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic.” This version is slightly revised.]
Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it six times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer, and last week he changed the provision that cancelled individual insurance policies.
The New York Times (11/15/13) described this last change as “a sweeping assertion of presidential authority to delay enforcement of certain provisions of federal law.” That is the narrowest possible interpretation, but still, where did Mr. Obama get that authority? From the premise that he is not bound by the Constitution.
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama has ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional.
Why is he doing this? For the worst possible reason. “[T]o avoid opening the measure to legislative attack in Congress,” The Times says. In other words, to keep it out of the hands of the people’s representatives because the Constitution gives them, and only them, the power to write laws.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama has acted on the principle that the President can rewrite federal laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. It is appalling that Mr. Obama has taken this power at the behest of Congressmen who, like Mr. Obama, have sworn to defend the Constitution—to whom their oath evidently meant, and means, nothing.
What is the effect of vitiating the Constitution, of establishing the principle that the President can change laws when he wants to?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.
If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.
Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.
Again in defiance of the Constitution, President Obama made four recess appointments in January 2012, when the Senate was not in recess. Three courts have found that his appointments were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court finds against him, what will Mr. Obama do?
We can get a hint by looking at how other parts of his Administration have dealt with Court decisions they did not like.
The Attorney General’s Office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” behavior to a “reasonable person.” In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” even if it is not objectively offensive—thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.
The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama administration is manifest. They feel bound by the Court’s decisions only if they agree with them. If they disagree, it is deuces wild; they will embrace any fiction to nullify the Court’s decision.
The direction in which Mr. Obama is taking us would make possible the following scenario. A Republican Congress is elected and repeals Obamacare over a Democratic President’s veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President’s refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces that ruling and refuses to be bound by it.
If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. Whatever side that was, our national self-esteem would be unlikely to recover from the blow of finding that we are living in a banana republic.
The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?
Mr. Obama is moving us away from our traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country—implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country—an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.
What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?
Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country from his teachers. Their ideal was and is egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer than anyone else. A fair country is an unfree country because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities. Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they have their marching orders.
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the sand and we cannot ignore it.
Those who currently hold political office, and who meant their oath to defend the Constitution, need to act now. Surely, violation of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take (Congressional hearings, for example)—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”
We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”
M. Northrup Buechner is Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, New York.
“The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” behavior to a “reasonable person.” In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” even if it is not objectively offensive—thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.”
It’s really sad that a person this disconnected from objective reality can become a college professor.
Chris please elaborate. Do you dispute the statement, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature? including verbal conduct,” is something the Obama Dept. of Education has said or what? Curious… -Jack
No, I’m disputing the statement that “If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.”
If anyone can show a case where a man has been found guilty of sexual harassment for asking a woman on a date, then I’ll retract my statement. Until then, this is a deluded white male victimhood fantasy.
More importantly, and more relevant to the point of Buechner’s rambling article, Obama’s deadline extensions are perfectly constitutional and routine. Similar postponements have been routine under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-implement-obamacare-the-right-way-look-to-bushs-medicare-reform/2013/07/12/c2031718-e988-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
Here’s some more information on Obammie…the man who brought you Romneycare 2.0.
This is just disgusting but it’s the kind of behavior that Chris and Ellen Degenerate cheer in their lord and master, Obammie…
This while tens of millions of Americans are suffering severe economic hardship and the government is past broke…utterly disgusting and truly unconscionable.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/
The gummit has literally gone to the dogs…
The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: “Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine,” Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. “It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.”
Real Clear Politics:
My best answer is whatever works in his best interests.
One of the articles Chris posted was by a Bush administration official who explains similarities in the difficulties of the roll out of both the prescription drug plan (Par D) under Bush and the ACA under Obama. The more significant information however is in the differences. The Bush administration spent time educating seniors about the program before implementation and they tested the system for several months before opening it to the public. The roll out had problems but not the melt down that this program had.
Mr Leavitt’s WaPo article makes this curious (generous) statement: “Part D and the Affordable Care Act resulted from contentious negotiations and fierce legislative battles.”
The most significant instances when “fierce battles and contentious negotiations” took place were behind the closed doors of Nancy Pelosi’s office! There were no Republicans present and Democrat legislators were intimidated and bribed into making yes votes to pass a law that made them uncomfortable! One was Max Baucus of Montana who eventually announced his retirement and called the ACA a train wreck.
The article also contains this:
They didn’t “wait”…they are just poor planners.
This is also the reason that the Bush Par D drug plan has saved seniors money and has consistently come in under budget rather than being more costly than anticipated by CBO.
That was Democrat Doug Shoen!
Reforms made to healthcare that adhered to the philosophy spelled out by Michael Leavitt would have worked much better for the people. Had Democrats been willing to work with Republicans and learn from their experience this mess wouldn’t be happening and Democrats wouldn’t be looking like such idiots. The problem with Democrats is they can’t stand seeing Republicans and Republican ideas work…they keep trying to compete with failed ideology!
In reality both parties need to look at the overall mess of government intrusion into healthcare. Over the nearly fifty years of greater government involvement health insurance and care has gotten ever more costly and the programs are helping to bankrupt the country and the states.
The left loves to demonize private business because of profits. What it fails to take into account is that to make a profit a business must deliver satisfaction to the customer…a good product at an affordable price. It must compete for the public’s dollars with others in the field and this helps to drive costs lower as the businesses find ways to lower expenses while continuing to deliver a superior product. Because of these natural market forces, and because we would no longer have to pay for layers and layers of bureaucracy, Americans would get superior care at lower costs if the free market principles that have made America great are allowed to work. Those who believe strongly in non-profit healthcare and are particularly driven to work with the less fortunate would still be able to organize their businesses as non-profits.
The current delays are necessary because compliance is impossible; because too many people, especially young people, are rejecting enrollment in the ACA; and because there is an election coming up.
Setting America on the path to single payer was a bad move by the Democrats. Hopefully the American people will make changes in November that will help get us back on a more stable and workable path toward less government involvementjobs! and greater satisfaction for the people. Not to mention
The Liberal Government never seems to concern itself with the true understanding of free Enterprise. I agree fully with Tina’s explanation they only seem to criticize, constrict, condemns and add cost to private business. then of course tax any profit made. It has been said before and needs constant reminding, “The Government does not create any money of their own”, only after the effort is put forth by others labor, is when they consume the rewards of others successful efforts. This of course works well when those monies are evenly redistributed back to help improve this countries ability to produce goods with demand, and helping to support a reasonable production cost.
But as shown by most Liberal Government ideology, they only seem to reward those who exhibit sloth, then criticize instead of critic the successful guy for their work ethics.
In effect they are a welfare system unto themselves, with rules and rewards they do not earn.
And as to Obamacare editorial in whole:
“They didn’t “wait”…they are just poor planners”.
The President shoves Obamacare down our throats against our will and then fails to provide the proper oversight to make sure the program is
a) rolled out properly and b) that it works.
They are a little more than poor planners in my opionion.
Harold you’re right, of course…on both counts!
I thought the ACA and Paul Ryan Plan were major election issues. The ACA worked out a discount and better plan for me. How did it hurt you?
Thomas I’m one of those still waiting for the other shoe to drop. My company was included in a group that received a waiver. You’ll here from me at the end of this year about premiums and changes if any.
I have kids and grand kids that I am concerned will end up paying a heavy price for this mistake in the long run.
I was already paying pretty high premiums for my employees. Now that we see what the real premiums are I sure don’t expect the premiums for my employees to decline by $2500 as Obama promised when he sold this health insurance con to America.
The larger concerns, which people like you who see an immediate personal benefit often don’t consider, may be pretty devastating as we move into the future.
The hidden costs that will add to our already growing debt are a big concern to me. Saving money, rather than quality of care at the best possible price, is the driving force behind coverage so we will also see the quality of care diminish over time.
We found out last week that doctors will be required to take the hit when people don’t pay out of pocket costs. High deductibles and co-pays pretty much insure that doctors will be spending a lot more time trying to get paid for their services…they have already accepted lower payments. Some doctors are throwing up their hands and retiring early because the ACA asks too much of them. We already had a doctor shortage…the ACA has made that problem worse.
Some hospitals are opting out of the system for the same reasons. Many of them are cancer treatment centers so cancer patients will no longer have access to these hospitals.
The Weekly Standard has a chart showing the CBO revised cost of Obamacare starting with the figure Obama promised at $.9 Trillion in 2009. The chart shows a steadily rising cost for this “cheaper” program; sits at $2.6 Trillion through 2023. That’s quite a bit more than Obama promised when he was telling us the fairy tale.
CBO also estimates that the number of uninsured will never fall below 30 million. One of the big selling points was that the uninsured were costing us too much money and Obamacare would get them insured…another myth that didn’t pan out.
Just as the other social programs are now causing big deficits in the yearly budget and adding to our massive debt year after year so will this program. Our children and grandchildren will carry the burden for these short-sighted self-interested programs. The price they pay will be in higher taxes, fewer services, and diminished opportunity in an economically challenged nation.
There are no free lunches. The idea that we have lowered the cost of insurance is a complete sham. We have simply shifted and increased the burdens. We now get to pay for more bureaucracy and we will pay a much bigger price, one way and another, over time.
Tina: “The hidden costs that will add to our already growing debt are a big concern to me. Saving money, rather than quality of care at the best possible price, is the driving force behind coverage so we will also see the quality of care diminish over time.”
Don’t these two talking points contradict each other? If saving money is the driving force behind coverage, then how could this also grow our debt?
No, Chris, they don’t. Just because cost savings will be the driving force of the HHS doesn’t mean that the program won’t add to the nations debt. As the difference in projected debt in 2009 as compared to the projected debt in 2012 indicates, the program will continue to increase debt. this will only add to the pressure by HHS to cut services.
Tina: “No, Chris, they don’t. Just because cost savings will be the driving force of the HHS doesn’t mean that the program won’t add to the nations debt. As the difference in projected debt in 2009 as compared to the projected debt in 2012 indicates, the program will continue to increase debt. this will only add to the pressure by HHS to cut services.”
But the program is still estimated by the CBO to reduce the debt, not add to it.
Also, do you think private health insurance companies aren’t already driven by cost savings?