A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

10 constitutional violations


Posted: Jan 16, 2013

These are a year old and don't include anything from 2012. 1. The individual mandate No list of President Obama's constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term. 2. Medicaid coercion The Court will also be taking up Obamacare's massive intrusion on federal-state relations in the form of a coercive Medicaid expansion. The law compels states to drastically increase their Medicaid expenditures and reorganize their health care bureaucracies, on penalty of losing all(not just additional) Medicaid funds. No state contemplated such a program when it signed onto Medicaid � Arizona was the last to join, in 1982 � and now no state can afford to withdraw. Indeed, even if some withdrawal mechanism existed, withdrawn states' taxpayers would still be funding complying states' Medicaid programs. As the Supreme Court held in South Dakota v. Dole, there comes a point when "the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion." 3. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (a.k.a. "The Death Panel") IPAB is the group of 15 presidential appointees who, beginning in 2014, are tasked with reducing Medicare spending. Any decisions IPAB makes automatically become law that can only be overridden by a three-fifths majority vote in the Senate. Unlike other federal agencies, IPAB is subject to no external review � no public notification in advance of proposed rules or opportunity for comment, no administrative guidelines and no judicial review. Medicare comprises about 13 percent of the federal budget, so that's an awesome amount of power for Congress to delegate to unelected executive-branch bureaucrats. Indeed, it's so basic a violation of traditional separation of powers that there's no historical analog. The Goldwater Institute has filed a strong lawsuit challenging this (yet another) unprecedented aspect of Obamacare, which will continue wending its way through the lower courts regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the individual mandate and Medicaid-coercion issues. 4. The Chrysler bailout Building on the Bush administration's illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration bullied Chrysler's secured creditors � who were entitled to "absolute priority" � into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law but also the Constitution's Takings and Due Process Clauses. This blatant crony capitalism � government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders � discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. 5. Dodd-Frank Intended to remedy weaknesses in the U.S. financial system � ensuring transparency and accountability � the Dodd-Frank financial "reform" empowered unlimited, unreviewable and often secret bureaucratic discretion. The administrative bodies the legislation created face no constraints on the exercise of arbitrary authority. For example, the Treasury Department now has broad and essentially unchecked power to seize banks and other financial entities that it determines are unsound but "too big to fail." The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, meanwhile, craft, execute and interpret their own law. Due process and separation of powers issues abound. 6. The deep-water drilling ban Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Interior Department issued a blanket six-month moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge struck down that moratorium as arbitrary and capricious, but the government issued a new order to replace the one that was struck down. That order was subsequently withdrawn, but the judge was so shocked by the administration's conduct that he found the government in civil contempt of court. 7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors In April of this year, President Obama released a draft executive order (still pending) that would require businesses with federal contracts to disclose independent expenditures on federal elections (political speech independent of candidates and parties). This order is intended to undermine the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision � allowing independent expenditures by corporations, unions and other associations � by discouraging federal contractors and their executives from engaging in political speech. Citizens United held that such expenditures do not enable the kind of quid pro quo corruption that campaign finance laws are allowed to regulate, so this draft executive order shows contempt for the First Amendment by chilling protected speech. 8. Taxing political contributions Earlier this year, the IRS tried to muzzle political speech by asserting that donations to certain nonprofit advocacy groups (so-called 501(c)(4) organizations) would be subject to the gift tax. Historically, the IRS has not applied the gift tax in this way � donations to advocacy groups are not likely to be used to circumvent the estate tax � and when the IRS previously tried to tax political donations, it was rebuffed by the courts on the grounds that such transfers are not gifts (i.e., the donor is getting something in return). The IRS has since backed down, but the suspicion remains that it was trying to chill the political speech of those opposed to President Obama's policies, in violation of the First Amendment. 9. Graphic tobacco warnings Late last year, the FDA issued regulations requiring cigarette manufacturers to display graphic warnings on all packs of cigarettes that must cover at least 50% of the packaging and graphically portray tobacco-related illnesses. These warnings violate the First Amendment because the government is compelling the cigarette manufacturers to discourage their customers from buying their lawful products. Last month, a federal judge blocked the new regulation, which was due to go into effect in January, but the administration is appealing. 10. Health care waivers The Department of Health and Human Services has granted nearly 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare's onerous regulations. Nearly 20 percent of these waivers went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district. Nevada, home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while Republican-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Even beyond the unseemly political favoritism, such arbitrary dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions ranging from equal protection to the "intelligible principle" required for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies. Unlike 17th-century English monarchs, American presidents were not granted dispensing powers: As we've seen, the power to suspend a legal requirement can and will be used to arbitrarily favor the politically connected. Moreover, most of these waivers were never authorized by Congress in the first place. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/123;

fyi - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
A google search for almost any president you can think of would reveal that constitutional law is argued and disputed in a great many presidencies, including those of Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt, and Lincoln.

Argued and disputed, sure, - but not ignored and thwarted.

[ In Reply To ..]
Unless you can enlighten on that subject?

The Constitution is a living document, and our 9 Justices - are also alive and busy interpreting.

[ In Reply To ..]
How about taking any one of those items you posted and reading everything you can find on the issue with the intention of being really well informed? For a few days, anyway. You'd have to be careful not to only choose blogs that would't contradict what you feel you already know, since the object would be to gain understanding.

One thing wrong - fyi

[ In Reply To ..]
Judges are not supposed to interpret the law, they are supposed to enforce it as written.

Your statement in itself is but one interpretation of - the Constitution. See? Not so simple. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

you are incorrect - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
judges and Supreme Court Justices are not the same animal. The ONLY thing the Supreme Court does is interpret constitutional law; that is the sole role of the Supreme Court since its inception. (For goodness sake.)
Would you say that AGAIN? :) People tend to - forget the Supremes' funcction. nm
[ In Reply To ..]
x

Exactly. A living document is Obama speak. - Abby

[ In Reply To ..]
nm
the concept dates back to the late 19th century - doh!
[ In Reply To ..]
"living document" is not rhetoric.
"Obama speak" is, though. :)
Did you mean Scholastic speak? - RC
[ In Reply To ..]
I was taught in school that the Constitution is a living document.

How about... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
...responding to the 10 points the poster made. Are any of those 10 not true?

:) Better idea. I'll take the position that they're all dishonest, - and you explain each of them to me. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

I hope the graphic warnings appeal goes through - RC

[ In Reply To ..]
My father has emphysema and my aunt just died of lung cancer. I don't see how putting medical information in picture form on a pack of cigarettes is in violation of the First Amendment. All it is is information for the potential customer (read: future cancer patient). The words are already on the package, so really all a picture would do is show an example of what the words are saying.

Look at all the warnings we put on medications and their ads. The warnings alone take up more space in a magazine advertisement than the product does. We label food that may contain common allergens such as nuts. This is all information being relayed about the possible dangers of the product.

And regarding the individual mandate--wasn't that accusation already shot down by the Supreme Court?

I don't have time to read about the others. The two I mentioned are the ones I know (a little) about off the top of my head.

Similar Messages:


Serious Ethics ViolationsJan 12, 2017
Trump is committing serious ethics violations by not divesting.  You think his sons are not going to talk to him about the business?  Still hoping some Republicans will put country above party. ...

Romney Ethics Violations?Nov 05, 2012
Anyone hear about this and is it true? Can't confirm on snopes for some reason, and they are usually in the loop. UAW started this because he supposedly profited from the auto bailouts due to interestes in Delphi back in 2009? ...

Charlie Rangel Charged With Ethics ViolationsJul 22, 2010
I just changed the channel and caught the end of this - anyone else hear it and what is it about? ...

Clinton & DNC Accused Of Fraud, Finance Violations In ElectionNov 01, 2016
Complaint has been filed with the Federal Election Commission over the alleged violation of campaign finance laws by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Trends US Elections 2016 The complaint comes as undercover videos from the conservative Project Veritas allegedly show both the campaign and the DNC involved in ripping up voter registrations and unethical campaigning. According to the complaint, it’s based on “findings from an investigation conducted ...

Constitutional Rights.......Apr 21, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lygeYhV8QV4&feature=related ...

Finally Admitted It's Not ConstitutionalMar 06, 2013
On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through the nation when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in writing that the White House would be within its legal authority to execute an American citizen via drone on U.S. soil if that person was determined to pose a threat to national security. On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate panel, Holder was prodded repeatedly about this assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Holder eventually admitted that it would not be ...

Media Clowns Think They Have Constitutional Feb 21, 2017
RUSH: I want to thank F. Chuck Todd of NBC for opening my eyes to this. For the longest time I’ve been genuinely curious why it is that media people think that they cannot be criticized. And they really do. They really think they can go out and research people and they can dig up dirt from anybody they want, their pasts, and they can broadcast it all over. And if somebody’s life, somebody’s marriage, somebody’s relationship, somebody’s kid gets destroyed or ruined, fine and dandy. ...

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?Mar 22, 2010
According to what I have been reading today, NO. The government cannot force us to buy health insurance: "But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or pa ...

Yay! Court Upheld Romneycare As Constitutional!Jun 28, 2012
Thank you, Supreme Court! ...

Bruce Fein, Constitutional Lawyer, Impeach Obama? (long)Apr 09, 2011
I'm not up on this guy, but he seems to be all over the 'net in one capacity or another. Read his discussion, which starts back in the beginning of the making of the Constitution with examples of cases. This is very long but I tried to summarize his article. Please see the following link if you want to read the whole thing. THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the Un ...

House Bill Would Restore Respect For Immigration Law And The Constitutional ProcessJan 08, 2015
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) applauds the introduction of Repeal Executive Amnesty Act of 2015, a bill that would not only defund the president's unconstitutional amnesty, but would block further attempts by this or future administrations to rewrite immigration laws through executive memos. After six years of systematically dismantling and undermining immigration enforcement, the Repeal Executive Amnesty Act, introduced by Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.),&n ...

Arizona Enacts "Constitutional Carry" For Firearms...Apr 20, 2010
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/04/17/arizona-enacts-constitutional-carry-for-firearms/ ...