This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

The Lawless President

   One Obamalover on our blog, HM, is continually claiming that Obama has made less executive orders than his predecessors. I always tell him that it is not the number but the constitutionality that makes him different. HM never hears it. (Or can’t.) But I will try again.

"The Take Care Clause of the Constitution in Article II commands
each president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." So long as he issues orders specifically directing his subordinates on how to administer or enforce some aspect of federal law, he’s fulfilling his constitutional duty".

Two things executive orders cannot do: "They cannot make law, and they cannot stop laws from being carried out.
Obama fails on both accounts. Examples: He refuses to "faithfully execute laws" he does not like in violation of the Constitution. He refuses to prosecute some drug laws with which he does not agree. He refuses to prosecute immigration laws. His refusal to enforce a provision in ObamaCare that was making Democrats look bad. 

He usurps Congress and passes his own laws. Examples: He created law with the Dreamers and what’s more it was done to head of Rubio’s act through Congress. That was a double transgression. Others include his executive order that organizations who do not support the LGBT agenda under the rubric of "nondiscrimination" cannot receive a business contract with the federal government. Even Congress probably cannot get away with that. He also just changed Obamacare as to the number of workers required. He did those by fiat.

Obama is even using executive orders and actions to alter his own legislation. In these cases he can’t even claim Congress won’t do something. He actually does it to cover his own errors.

He has been unusual when he claims he has commanding power to do one thing, then turns around and says he does not have power to do other things he does not want to do–sometimes it is on the same thing–the NSA for example. He declared he had no power over immigration, then unilaterally granted temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants.

By Obama’s first five and one half years as president, he had seen 20 unanimous defeats before the Supreme Court. His unanimous Supreme Court loss rate, for the five and half years of his presidency, is nearly double that of President Bush and is 25 percent greater than President Clinton," Even the Congress itself has taken an unprecedented step of suing him for usurping powers not granted to him. There are numerous other suits.

Read more at: Read more
Read more
Read more


20 comments:

Happily Married said...

So Blogger, lets talk about the world being Black or White again -

You have compared the constitutionality of executive actions with other Presidents. Bush lost 15 cases unanimously and Clinton lost 23. The article indicates that Obama is outpacing them. So we have Presidents with entire staffs devoted to constitutional law and advising. We have Presidents that want to issue executive actions in order to fulfill what they believe their job requirements are. Just like the other Presidents, Obama is simply doing his job - the same job as the others. Your numbers lack being compelling by a large margin. If he were 10 times worse - then maybe. Obama is facing an absolutely worthless Congress whose do nothing philosophy is abysmal. He is issuing executive actions in the same manner as the others - - when he believes he has the power to do so - and when he feels it is the right thing to do. He is very aware that it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the final outcome. He is called a leader - plain and simple. Once again, the numbers are not - compelling 20 versus 15? This is not black and white as you would indicate - just maybe a bias against the black part of it.

You do realize that you had your followers actually claiming that the President staged the entire sailor fiasco and the immediate release so he would look good? Tell me you and your followers do not have a bias.

Anonymous said...

Bush's executive action to use torture, even if it was an international war crime was constitutional?

Sarkazein said...

Happily wrote- "This is not black and white as you would indicate - just maybe a bias against the black part of it."

Race baiter. Obama has earned the bias through his actions and his divisive rhetoric. Obama goes from having a rubber stamp Congress in Pelosi and Reed to losing it because of his actions. If you were even close to right, Obama would still have a majority in both Houses and would have built on it. You could not be more wrong and you sure use up a lot of words proving it.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

So my point about something as simple as numbers is Wrong? Obama is that much worse than Bush or Clinton? 15 versus 20 versus 23? Lets approach this using the same "black and white" mentality. Is everyone here bias because Obama is black - probably not - are enough people bias because he is black to cause extreme opinions - probably so. His "divisive rhetoric" is simply stating what is right and what is wrong with this country. Any policy that discriminates based on race or religion is simply wrong. Trump is wrong. Most posters on this blog are wrong. Blogger is wrong about hatred or even bias towards Muslims. Is that divisive - if you continually seek some outlet for hatred - maybe so. You cant hate gays anymore so Muslims are next. Who is truly being divisive here?

Sarkazein said...

You

Happily Married said...

Sark,

You claim that Obama has "rewarded" a terrorist state and is now funding terrorism. You do realize that Obama has done no such thing. Iran had assets frozen by an international effort. The money was THEIRS and is simply theirs again. You asked the question about two skiffs DEFEATING two heavily armed boats. There was no defeat because there was no fight. The US ships screwed up and ended up in Iranian waters. instead of escalating, they admitted their mistake, were captured, and thanks to diplomatic efforts by this administration, the sailors and boats were released in less than 24 hours. I go back to the hypocrisy of the conservative voice which blasted Obama for not addressing the issue in his SOTU. He already had it solved through prudent leadership. As suspected, no one here has the balls to admit it, simply pound the same old drum that if Obama did it, it must be bad or wrong. History will judge this man as an effective leader - maybe not the best President in History, but a good President overall. I have been referred to as an Obamalover. The same "black and white" approach of the simple minded. I do not approve of everything he does. He certainly deserves more credit than he gets on this blog.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Your words- "were captured" (our sailors were armed)= defeated. When you give up your weapons, kneel, put you hands on the your head AT GUNPOINT, you are defeated. Try and sell your drivel to the radical Muslim world. The IRANIANS are using it as a propaganda video. AS of 2014 DOS had Iran as a terrorist State. Has this changed? Maybe Sydney Blumenthal had Hillary change it, I don't remember it being in the NEWS.

Sarkazein said...

When the US accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner, eventually we paid tens of billions in restitution. With the take over of our embassy there previously, the Iranians lost all rights to that money. Now, with the stories of them supplying IEDs to IRAQ, they certainly do not deserve any money from the Shah's monarchy. They have supplied missiles in its attack on Israeli civilians. This makes them a terrorist State that Obama is prostrating himself to.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Defeat means to win victory over someone in a battle or other contest. There was no battle or other contest. The US screwed up and yes, did not fire our weapons at them when WE screwed up. You seem to take the position that it is OK for the US to screw up, but heaven help any other nationality screwing up with us. You seem to place your sorry American ass as more valuable than the rest of the people in the world - and it is not - we are all equal. I think that is a core problem with conservative republican war think. You think we should pay for the biggest and baddest military on the planet so we can use it - no matter if we are right or wrong. BTW, the US paid 62 million for OUR mistake. Obama is not prostrating - he is being a leader in terms of diplomacy and he has dismantled their nuclear program so they have no chance of getting a nuclear weapon. This means they get access to THEIR money. If the sailors had fired upon the Iranians, it woudl have, once again, been our fault. I have no interest in paying more money to this governmnet for our screw ups. At least this time we did not screw up - although I am sure if you were there we would have.

Happily Married said...

Blogger,

You indicated a continued preference for Trump. This is the man who wants to bomb the oil fields in Iraq and take over the oil for our profits. This is the man that speaks at a fourth grade level to people and continues to ridicule and name call people and groups. this is the man who wants to make direct policies against a particular religion - Muslim. In honor of today I must point out a couple of quotes: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "A na­tion that con­tin­ues year after year to spend more money on mil­it­ary de­fense than on programs of so­cial up­lift is ap­proach­ing spir­itu­al death."
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- "You seem to place your sorry American ass as more valuable than the rest of the people in the world - and it is not - we are all equal"

Speak for yourself Liberal. The Iranians sponsor terrorism. We don't. We are not equal. We are better.... 'cept for you maybe.

Sarkazein said...

HERE IS A CHART showing your favorite country's spending. Obama is sending them more money. He is sponsoring terrorism. Would you release BinLaden's money... it's his. And you consider yourself and America no better than Al-Qaeda. How did you get that way? Did someone make you that way... you're a victim. How did you come to the position the US is no better than Hamas? Most of the rest of America is better than you.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Your perspective is the central problem - and what has caused the biggest issues in the middle east. You hate Iranians - and liberals and you feel superior to both groups - most likely the same for gays and muslims. The US has inserted itself for far too long in the middle east. As a nation, we have created these terrorist. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And it is not Iranians. Iranians are no better or worse than Americans - or Russians. Governments can do bad things - and America is not squeaky clean on this. Obviously groups like ISIS are deplorable. I never said Iran was my favorite country - once again you conservative republicans cant get beyond black and white. I only said that Iranians are just as human as Americans. I never said America was no better than Al Qaeda or Hamas. Your problem is that if someone like me dares say that American people and Iranian people are equal - and should be treated as such - you immediately jump to ethnic stereotyping. The same with Muslims - the conservative consensus among those who cant understand above a fourth grade reading level is that Muslims must be bad because of radical Islamists. You cant see beyond your tendency to hate some group - any group. You will search for any excuse - and Trump is feeding that need to hate.

BTW - still no balls on this site.

Sarkazein said...

Happy belched- " As a nation, we have created these terrorist."

No need to say anymore, he/she has done it for me.

Sarkazein said...

My last word on it, dumb-ass. We were talking about the Iranian government. Obama's not handing out Obamaphones in Tehran to the general public, he is funding the Iranian government... a terrorist State.

Wolf's Head said...

Lawless President is right.

He wants to disarm the American people. He set up the "Fast and Furious" program to strongarm dealers into selling assault weapons to KNOWN criminals to boost stats to support his gun control agenda.

These weapons will be killing people for decades [centuries if they're an AK (I'm a big AK fan)]

SO where did Obama and Attorney General Holder funnel these guns to? Here's one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/20/rifle-capable-taking-down-helicopter-found-at-el-chapo-hideout-purchased-through-fast-and-furious-program.html?intcmp=latestnews

That weapon was in criminal hands directly because of Obama and his anti gun zealotry.

Wolf's Head said...

Interestingly, I just happened to stumble upon this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/20/rifle-capable-taking-down-helicopter-found-at-el-chapo-hideout-purchased-through-fast-and-furious-program.html?intcmp=latestnews

Obama is directly responsible for the murders committed with these weapons, including Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Sarkazein said...

If he funds terrorism, it is no wonder he was an arms supplier to Mexican drug lords. He's now supplying terrorist personnel back to the battlefield by releasing them from GITMO.

Sarkazein said...

Oh, and he (Obama) does it all by ignorance and arrogance. Happy is right, he's no better than the Iranians.

Happily Married said...

But then too Sark - neither are you - most certainly neither are you.