Royal Waivers from Passed Law
A disturbing trend in the attitude and actions of this administration is the disregard for the law as actually passed by Congress and signed by his predecessors.
The reason it is referred to as "law" is so it can not be changed or altered by the whim of an executive or an administration. We would hope and expect. But from the same president who complained of the threat of the Supreme Court overruling ObamaCare, we seem to get an endless stream of waivers and protections for some from the deliberated and passed legislation of the land still in effect for others.
Waivers from ObamaCare
One thousand three hundred and seventy-two is the current count of waivers from ObamaCare. Most have been given to those with Union affiliations (full list here). If ObamaCare is the wonderful legislation that it is touted to be, why so many waivers? For that matter, why are all the senators and representatives, and families of same, exempt from ObamaCare? No wonder they didn't bother to read it.
Waivers from immigration laws
This number can range from 800 million to nearly double that number. Why the "magic wand" here, and not real legislation from our elected representatives? Immunity from deportation for young illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with Americans. It also blatantly ignores the law. Undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years can apply for the relief, so long as they are under the age of 30, according to a memo from DHS. They also must be either an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces or a student who has graduated from high school or obtained a GED. Immigrants will not be eligible if they "pose a threat to national security or public safety," including having been convicted of a felony, a "significant" misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors.
This is so full of holes that one wonders if the "holes" were by design.
Go easy on the Occupiers
Give them special consideration. Ignore the law. On Nov. 6, 2011, DHS/National Protection and Programs Directorate Chief of Staff Caitlin Durkovich asked GSA's Peck if it was true that his agency had asked Federal Protective Service officials not to take action against the Occupy Portland protesters.
"Yes, that is our position," said Peck. "It's been vetted with our Administrator and Michael Robertson, our chief of staff, and we have communicated with the WH [White House], which has afforded us the discretion to fashion our approach to Occupy issues...The arrests last week were carried out despite our request that the protesters be allowed to remain and to camp overnight[.]" Read here.
Black Panther polling place thuggery
Videotaped. Indisputable. The prosecution for this crime was waived via the intentional inaction of the Department of Justice. This department, under Eric Holder, that eschews voter ID for its alleged encumbrance was inactive in this blatant event of voter intimidation. This "waiver' was given with the implicit and tacit approval of the White House.
War Powers Act
Section 3 of the War Powers Act requires that the president shall "consult" rather than merely "notify" Congress in the deployment of our military forces such as witnessed in the Libyan conflict.
Before ordering the deployment of United States armed forces into significant armed conflict, the President shall consult with the Joint Congressional Consultation Committee. To "consult," for purposes of this Act, the President shall provide an opportunity for the timely exchange of views regarding whether to engage in the significant armed conflict, and not merely notify the Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that the significant armed conflict is about to be initiated.
This administration chose to notify rather than consult. Notification is not consultation.
Rewriting passed law
The proponents and authors of the Affordable Care Act purposely and for political reasons avoided the use of the word "tax." The bill had little chance of passage with the word "tax" in use. Therefore, the word "penalty" was put in play. "Penalty" suggests a punishment for wrongdoing or noncompliance.
Judge Roberts made the distinction between "tax" and "penalty." He declared that they are fundamentally different.
Scalia correctly believes that this decision by Roberts has the effect of rewriting the passed bill. Because the bill is judged to now be fundamentally different with this new interpretation, the bill should have been brought to a revote with the word "tax" used instead of "penalty." Scalia notes in his dissent:
[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not[.] ... [W]e have never-never-treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a "penalty." Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a "penalty."
In a State of the Union address, Obama misrepresented to a national audience of millions the Citizens v. Election board decision. Unrebutted and with no opportunity for questioning that inaccurate portrayal, millions were misinformed by President Obama. The only indication of the misdirection play was the reaction of Judge Alito. Obama never clarified or corrected this national disinformation.
It seems clear that our system has cracks in its checks and balances. From the aforementioned points to the stonewalling of a Congressional Oversight Committee by the Department of Justice to a Senate that conveniently ignores its obligation to produce a budget, the system that was designed to be a defense for the people against government is not perfect. This administration has proven that.
But if indeed President Obama studied constitutional law, it must not have been for future adherence purposes, but more in a fashion similar to the Chicago Bears' offense studying the Green Bay Packers' defense. Where are the weaknesses? How do we get around it?