OBAMA CLAIMS CONSTITUTION ‘GUARANTEES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN ALL FIFTY STATES’

‘News From An Uncompromising Biblical Worldview’

He Now Believes The U.S. Constitution Requires
The States To Legalize Same-Sex “Marriage.”

Heather Clark, Christian News Network — (WASHINGTON) Just two years after Barack Obama announced that he had reversed his longstanding opinion that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, the president of the United States is now taking his view even further by stating that he believes that the Constitution requires states to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

“Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states,” he said in an interview published this week by the New Yorker.

Obama was responding to a question about his favorite Supreme Court ruling during his tenure. He advised that rather he thought the court’s recent decision not to hear the appeals from states who sought to defend their marriage amendments was the most telling and showed that the court needed to “catch up” with the changing opinions of society.

“In some ways, the decision that was just handed down to not do anything about what states are doing on same-sex marriage may end up being as consequential—from my perspective, a positive sense—as anything that’s been done,” Obama said. “Because I think it really signals that although the Court was not quite ready—it didn’t have sufficient votes to follow Loving v. Virginia and go ahead and indicate an equal-protection right across the board—it was a consequential and powerful signal of the changes that have taken place in society and that the law is having to catch up.”

Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 Supreme Court ruling surrounding the right of men to marry those of different races.

“But, as you know, courts have always been strategic,” he said. “And, given the direction of society, for the Court to have allowed the process to play out the way it has may make the shift less controversial and more lasting.”

In years past, although Obama had been clear about his determination to further the homosexual agenda, he was hesitant to state that he supported homosexual “marriage.” While running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama said at the time that he believed marriage was solely the union between a man and a woman.

“What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” he stated in an interview with WTTW-TV. “I don’t think marriage is a civil right.”

Obama reiterated his beliefs in 2010, but stated that his views about the matter were “evolving.”

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage,” he said. “But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships.”

But as previously reported, in 2012, Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts, that his friends had changed his opinion about the issue and that he now supported same-sex “marriage.”

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” he said.

During the interview, however, Obama opined that the matter was an issue for the states to decide.

“And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue … Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate,” he outlined. “And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.”

However, this week’s revelation marks another change in the president’s views—that he now believes the U.S. Constitution requires the states to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

» Full Article

» Heather Clark | Article Archive
» Christian News Network | Website
» Christian News Network | Twitter

TOP HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER SAYS AMERICA IS AN ISLAMIC COUNTRY

Steadfast and Loyal

This Is How It Begins

Allen West — The one thing I appreciate about Islamists is that they don’t try to rewrite their history and they tell you exactly what they believe.

Case in point: as reported by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), Obama Homeland Security adviser, Mohamed Elibiary, generated controversy last fall when he wrote that the U.S. Constitution was “Islamically compliant.” He returned to the top last Saturday morning with a Twitter post: “…I said America was an Islamic country, not a Muslim country. Pls study up on the difference b4 attacking me.” Last we checked, that post appeared to have been deleted from Elibiary’s Twitter feed.

---

IPT wrote to him asking for clarification, but Elibiary declined to explain. They found the tweets puzzling, considering there were only 2.6 million Muslims in the U.S. as of 2010, which represents less than .2 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

---

It’s not puzzling to me because this is how it happens, with simple statements made to test the waters. I hate to disagree with this fella but he fails to understand that America is a Constitutional Republic.

And how he comes up with the conclusion that our U.S. Constitution is “Islamically compliant” is beyond comprehension — considering Islamic law is rooted in the practice called Sharia rooted in the Koran. That is clearly a violation of our establishment of religion clause – but it’s funny — I don’t hear liberal progressives chiming in about separation of church and state on that one.

A source close to Elibiary told IPT, however, that the Homeland Security adviser meant to say he feels there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution and the American system that runs contrary to Islam. Really?

---

This ladies and gentlemen is how it begins. Islamists infiltrate our governing systems and deceive us with lies, making us believe there is no true delineation in our fundamental beliefs.

---

And it is not just that Islamists, like Mohamed Elibiary, seek to minimize the meaning of our Constitution — they also seek to hijack the Black Civil Rights movement. Elibiary also compared criticism of Islamism, or political Islam, with “segregation era standards,” and invoked the memory of the “separate & unequal doctrine” that marked that era. Gee, that sounds familier. It’s the same tactic used by the radical gay rights movement. I’m not aware that “Muslim” is a race.

Elibiary also predicted that conservatives would evolve on the foreign policy front to accept a “Muslim majority world.” Hate to tell him but that dog don’t hunt. It’s quite disturbing that the statement infers Elibiary is accepting of the ISIS army and its goal to establish an Islamic caliphate.

What I find disturbing by not surprising is this man is allowed to have a position in the most important domestic security government agency, our Department of Homeland Security. Is there any doubt as to what Mr. Mohamed Elibiary is advising?

---

So I ask once again: on whose side is Barack Hussein Obama and his administration?

---

» Full Article

About the Author

ALLEN WEST was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia in the same neighborhood where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once preached. He is the third of four generations of military servicemen in his family.

During his 22 year career in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel West served in several combat zones: in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was a Battalion Commander in the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and later in Afghanistan. He received many honors including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals and a Valorous Unit Award. In 1993 he was named the US Army ROTC Instructor of the Year.

In November of 2010, Allen was honored to continue his oath of service to his country when he was elected to the United States Congress, representing Florida’s 22nd District. » Full Bio

» Allen B. West | Article Archive
» The Official Website of Colonel Allen West
» Allen West | Twitter
» Allen West | Facebook

Other Articles by Allen West

» Operation Zero Footprint: The Bombshell Truth About Benghazi?

We now have a pretty good understanding of who, what, where, and why surrounding the 9/11/12 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi Libya. We are also better positioned to understand why, or perhaps more importantly why not, certain actions were taken before, during, and in the immediate aftermath of the attack itself. We know from the...

» U.S. Ought To Send A Platoon Of Marines To Escort Meriam Ibrahim To Safety

And so the disrespect by the Sudanese government for America continues. Last night it was widely reported that Meriam Ibrahim had been released from prison. However, as reported today by CNN, she was rearrested Tuesday at an airport as she was trying to leave the African country. Ibrahim, her American husband, Daniel Wani, and their two...

» Koskinen Illustrates Primary Job Qualification For Obama Administration: Arrogance

According to a report by the AP, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen stated, “I have the ability to say I have seen no evidence of any crime.” The clear retort to that assertion is simple: then why has now retired IRS employee Lois Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment twice? People only plead the Fifth if they can potentially incriminate themselves...

THE CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE V ‘CONVENTION OF THE STATES’

Christian Information Radio

With Host Dr. Vic Eliason

The People Ignoring The Constitution
Are Opposed To These Things

On Today’s Show (March 18, 2014): Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center. Tom is one of the nation's leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

Article V allows for ways to amend the Constitution. One is by Congress passing an amendment that's sent to the states to be ratified. The other way is to have two-thirds of the states pass legislation calling for a constitutional convention to discuss one or more issues. Once two-thirds or 34 states put in such a request, then according to Article V Congress is supposed to convene a constitutional convention.

One of the major concerns that Tom has with the idea of holding a constitutional convention is that once one is called, there is no controlling of what is discussed.

As Tom noted, our Constitution is the only governing document that says you have rights you are born with and it's the job of government to protect those rights. That's what makes us a republic, not a democracy. The reason this is a concern is because there are those who feel our Constitution is old, outdated and needs to be modernized. The people saying these kinds of things want to change our Constitution because they don't like what it says. It's restricting what they want to do and they want it out of the way. One of the ways that's being used to do away with it is to simply ignore it.

Those who appreciate our Constitution see this taking place and the answer for some is to initiate an Article V convention. Tom doesn't see how this solves anything any differently than a constitutional convention. You're still bringing a group of people together, you have to decide how the delegates are chosen and there's no way to control what happens once they convene.

The problem is, why does this have to be done in the first place? Again, it's because those in power are ignoring the Constitution. Tom described a scenario where he imagined we had an Article V convention and we passed a balanced budget amendment, we made English the official language, stopped illegal immigration, etc., and now these things are in the Constitution. At that point, what changes? The people ignoring the Constitution are opposed to these things. What under an Article V convention model forces anyone to adhere to the Constitution? Under this scenario, just because the American public would have passed these things doesn't force legislators to suddenly have to govern properly. He cited Obamacare as a classic example. 75% of the American public didn't want it and it passed anyway.

» More Information & Audio Options

About Crosstalk Radio

The Crosstalk Radio Talk Show is heard each weekday on over 90 radio outlets across America and worldwide on the Internet. Crosstalk covers the issues that affect our world, our nation, our families and the Christian church from a perspective centered in the Word of God. Whether we discuss the economy, the political scene, the continuing moral collapse of our nation, legislation that affects the family, or the state of evangelicalism, our authority is found in the unchanging standard of the Holy Scriptures. Veteran co-hosts Dr. Vic Eliason and Jim Schneider have worked as a team for over 20 years to bring solid information to the body of Christ.

» VCY America, Inc. - Christian Information Radio
» Official Crosstalk America Facebook Page

WILD BILL: TWO FOR TUESDAY

Our God And Country Commentator

“America...Bless God, Again”

Gun Owners: Come And Get Them!

“Connecticut Democrats are pushing law abiding gun owners into a fight!”

Backhanding the Military....Again!

“Hurting America's finest men and women in uniform is getting to be a despicable habit of the left....Bill calls them out on it!”

About Wild Bill:

Bill grew up in the Colorado Rockies and had a successful career in law enforcement, serving as both a Deputy Sheriff and a Deputy U.S. Marshal. He is a graduate of the Colorado Law enforcement Academy, the Federal Law Enforcement Academy and the U.S. Marshal’s Academy. Prior to law enforcement Bill served with the U.S. Marines as a Corpsman. » Full Bio

Wild Bill’s Mission:
I

“To support and encourage the Tea Party and other conservative Americans because they are the people who will guard America’s freedom and heritage, ensuring that the United States will continue to be the greatest nation in history.”

II

“To promote Biblical values and remind American’s of the importance of faith in God, His Son, Jesus Christ and His written Word, as our ultimate guide to all of life.”

III

“To speak out boldly on the most important issues of our time, with just the right amount of humor and satire to keep it interesting.”

IV

“To keep America as one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all”

PROMINENT LIBERAL LEGAL SCHOLAR: OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ARE ‘A VERY DANGEROUS THING’

THE KELLY FILE

“Founding Fathers Would Be Horrified
By Obama’s Executive Orders”

» FOX News Videos

(H/T: 68TruthSeeker)

IMPEACHMENT: THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO OBAMA DICTATORSHIP

America’s Independent News Network

Obama’s Executive Orders
Differ From Previous Presidents

Tom Tancredo, WND — The case for impeaching and removing President Obama grows stronger each week, as the president continues to violate the constitutional limits on his executive powers. His latest move in delaying the enforcement of yet another part of Obamacare should be article 20 in a bill of indictable offenses against the Constitution.

Citizens of all persuasions and parties should take encouragement in the fact that impeachment is fast becoming a respectable topic of debate even in the mainstream media. Of course, it is usually discussed with the disclaimer that it is a practical impossibility with Democrats in control of the Senate.

That Beltway conventional wisdom will soon change as Republican control of the Senate in 2015 becomes increasingly likely. But what Republicans do not yet understand is that the call for impeachment can be a winning issue in gaining control of the Senate in the November elections.

The rising tide of public opposition to Obamacare may soon be reinforced by a rising tide of demand for Obama’s removal before he can do any more damage to our liberties and our national security. In fact, the steady decline in Obama’s approval rating – now at about 39 percent – is due as much to the growing public awareness of his arrogant disregard for the Constitution as it is to disillusionment with Obamacare.

His actions in defiance of constitutional limits have become so numerous and brazen that chronicling them has become a cottage industry. The use of executive orders to circumvent Congress can no longer be called an occasional breach of faith. His abuse of power has become so frequent and brazen that it is becoming recognized as the trademark of his presidency.

And that is why it must not be tolerated. How often do we hear from the left that Americans must not be “good Germans” and remain silent in the face of oppressive laws? What about obedience to dictatorial edicts?

Allowing such unconstitutional acts to be accepted as routine, as “just part of the Obama landscape,” is tantamount to accepting the inevitability of dictatorship in America. Citizens must oppose those actions vigorously and persistently, and that begins with a call for impeachment.

The defense we hear for Obama’s actions is that “all presidents have used executive orders to advance their policies,” and that Obama has issued fewer executive orders in his first five years than Reagan did. That argument is a straw man distraction from the real issue.

Executive orders are legitimate when confined to legitimate areas of executive discretion and administrative implementation of the law. They are NOT legitimate as a way of making new laws, and that is where Obama is radically different from other presidents.

Obama uses executive orders – and sometimes administrative decrees issued by his Cabinet officers or their subordinates – not to implement laws but to create new law, which is a power given to Congress by the Constitution. Allowing Obama to continue doing this with impunity is an invitation to disaster for our constitutional democracy.

Obama has engaged in this dictatorial behavior not two or three times but at least 18 times. It is a pattern, not an occasional thing.

The two most outrageous examples are his unilateral – and ongoing – rewriting of the Affordable Care Act, which everyone knows as Obamacare, and his order to the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency in June of 2012 to implement the “Deferred Action on deportations” program for illegal aliens.

What makes the “Deferred Action” program so brazen an act outside his constitutional powers is that Congress had in December of 2011 voted to reject the so-called “Dream Act.” Thus, in this case, Obama did not act in the absence of congressional action, he acted in defiance of congressional action. Obama simply declared it the law of the land by unilateral, administrative decree. Contrary to media reports, he did not sign an executive order; he merely ordered it done by a junior appointee in the Department of Homeland Security.

Obama has also acted in defiance of Congress in several instances on national security matters, such as his refusal to halt military aid to Egypt despite a congressional resolution to suspend that aid. Those actions can legitimately be added to a bill of indictment, but his many illegal actions on domestic policy are more easily understood by the public.

It is quite possible, even likely, that when all the facts are known, Obama or persons acting on his orders will be shown to have committed criminal offenses in covering up two scandals – the IRS harassment of conservative nonprofit organizations and the coverup of his own role in the Benghazi fiasco.

It is time for the Republican leadership to conduct an “intervention” for a president who has become addicted to dictatorial behavior. Let’s stop being the enablers through silence for unconstitutional acts. » Full Article

About the Author

Tom Tancredo is the founder of the Rocky Mountain Foundation and founder and co-chairman of Team America PAC. He is also a former five-term congressman and presidential candidate. Tancredo is the author of "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security."

» Tom Tancredo | Article Archive
» WND

Other Headline News On WND

» Congressman: Obama ‘Doesn't Understand’ Constitution
Charge comes amid new executive orders

» Obama ‘Weaponizing Government’ Against Nonprofits
‘This is bare-knuckle politics being used by agencies to maintain power’

» What Will You Do To Preserve The 1st Amendment?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah asks readers to stand against Obama’s targeting of his enemies

---

AMERICA’S CHRISTIAN HERITAGE: FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS

Reverend Charles Finney

The Father of Modern Revivalism

Presbyterian Minister

Evangelist; Revivalist; Author

On ‘Church Pulpits & Ministers’

Biography

Charles Grandison Finney (August 29, 1792 – August 16, 1875) was a leader in the Second Great Awakening. He has been called The Father of Modern Revivalism. Finney was best known as an innovative revivalist, an opponent of Old School Presbyterian theology, an advocate of Christian perfectionism, a pioneer in social reforms in favor of women and African-Americans, a religious writer, and president at Oberlin College. » Full Bio

» See All ‘America’s Christian Heritage’ Posts

We Need To Resurrect The Black Robe Regiment

Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Most Christian pastors today appear to have little in common with the preachers of yesteryear. For example, many modern clerics would probably be surprised to learn of the active role colonial preachers had in America's fight for independence. It is no hyperbole to say that had it not been for the activism of America's pulpits, our independence would never have been won and this nation would not even exist.

It was Pastor Jonas Clark and his congregants at the Church of Lexington who comprised that initial body of brave colonists called Minutemen. These were the men, you will recall, who withstood British troops advancing on Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms and arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and fired “the shot heard round the world.”

So influential were the patriot-pulpits of Colonial America that it was said by Prime Minister Horace Walpole in the British Parliament, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.” In fact, America’s War for Independence was often referenced in Parliament as “the Presbyterian Revolt.” And during the Revolutionary War, British troops often made colonial churches military targets. Churches were torched, ransacked, and pillaged. » Full Article

Black Robe Regiment

OBAMA’S TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION BRINGS REVOLUTION

Informing and Equipping Americans
Who Love Freedom

ObamaCare Sets Up A Massive
Wealth Redistribution Scheme

Kris Zane, The Western Center For Journalism — History may be repeating itself. “Taxation without representation” may soon be shouted from coast to coast, as a team of legal researchers have found that ObamaCare sets up a massive wealth redistribution scheme—all illegally.

In an eighty-page academic paper appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Health Matrix, entitled “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”—the authors reveal that the Federal Exchange—Health.gov, provides subsidies to the “poor”—families making up to $100,000 per year—illegally.

This, along with Obama’s other illegal acts—constantly ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law, directing the NSA to spy on Americans, setting up a police state with his out-of-control TSA—is bringing about a revolution: Forget about impeachment. Americans are demanding Obama leave the White House immediately. In the words of Larry Klayman, who single-handedly won a lawsuit against the NSA’s illegal spying of Americans:

I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come up with his hands up.

» Full Article

“No Taxation Without Representation”

“Produced, written, and edited by Kris Zane. Narrated by Tom Hinchey.”

» The Western Center For Journalism
» The Western Center For Journalism | Facebook
» WCJournalism | YouTube
» Kris Zane | Article Archive

Other Headline News On WCJ

» More Hidden ObamaCare Expenses

In less than three months since its initial implementation, Obama’s healthcare law has been roundly panned by Americans of all stripes. ObamaCare has been defined by a botched website, repeated lies regarding an individual’s ability to keep his or her existing policy, and numerous hidden fees and taxes.

» Federal Judge OKs NSA Data Mining

Activists on both sides of the political spectrum have expressed outrage over the actions of Obama’s National Security Agency. After whistleblower Edward Snowden released a significant amount of information exposing the agency’s widespread collection of information related to domestic phone calls, many Americans called for an end to the practice.

» Obama: Descendant Of Slave Owners

Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TOP 10 CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF 2013

Alas, Things May Get Worse Before They Get Better

Ilya Shapiro (Capital Flows), Forbes — One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps.

The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.

The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements.

The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare.

A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate
penalty through IRS regulation.

Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS.

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments.

Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments.

Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses.

Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act.

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

» Full Article
» Forbes

About the Author
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. » Capital Flows | Article Archive