Letters to editor

Obama’s Constitutional violations

By From page A11 | November 30, 2012

This letter is in response to Charles McClaughlin, who doubted Thomas Sowell’s assertion that “Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule,” because Sowell gave no examples.

Here are only a few:

1. Launching an illegal war in Libya. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. Under the War Powers Act, Obama had 60 days to get congressional approval after U.S. bombs started dropping in Tripoli, but he didn’t bother.

2. Undermining the Nation’s armed forces. Article II, Section 2 names the president commander in chief. Instead of asserting American power, Obama projects weakness, thus emboldening our enemies. The murder of four Americans in Benghazi and the attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Yemen are the bitter fruit of that reality. Obama has done nothing to bring any justice to these acts of violence against the U.S. See the online video “Dishonorable Disclosures” for further specifics.

3. Stonewalling Fast and Furious. Article I, Section 3 states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The Justice Department’s subdivision of ATF “walked” more than 2,000 firearms to drug gangs in Mexico. After providing the gangs with the firearms, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, along with at least 100 Mexicans, by Mexican drug gangs.

4. Allowing the FCC to grab the Internet. The Telecommunications Act gives the FCC authority over wire and broadcasting, but not broadband. Congress and a federal appeals court rejected the FCC’s claims of authority, yet the FCC released “net neutrality” rules in December 2010. This violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The FCC has no more authority over the Internet than it does over the musings of Joe Biden.

Mr. McLaughlin, is this enough to convince you? If not, many more examples can be found in the online article “Obama Constitutional Violations” by Robert Knight.

Valerie Dodini


Letter to the Editor


Discussion | 5 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • rlw895November 29, 2012 - 6:22 pm

    Interesting list, but not "constitutional violations," especially #2. You left off refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (perhaps a better example for #3). Is the president required to enforce or follow laws he thinks are unconstitutional? The answer is, he isn't, at least the Constitution doesn't require it. These are more political questions, and this letter is a political statement, as it should be. The next level up is to get Supreme Court review, but arguably, the president is not bound to follow even those rulings, though no president these days would survive the political backlash if he didn't. The solution to a scofflaw president is to vote him out of office or impeach him. Those are both political acts (impeachment looks like a legal action, but it's not), and both are hard to do, at it should be. The people spoke Nov 6 regarding the first approach. Congress can impeach and attempt to convict, but that seems highly unlikely over these issues. Congress would probably suffer politically more that the president.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksNovember 30, 2012 - 6:52 am

    George W. Bush mastered circumventing the Constitution. We could go back and forth all day, what is the point really? I am repeating myself but denial and further obstruction will only reduce GOP effectiveness and destroy their future in politics, their gamesmanship notwithstanding.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike kirchubelNovember 30, 2012 - 8:38 am

    RLW AND CD, you guys are just too nice. I enjoy starting my Day with a hearty laugh. This letter provided that. Thanks, Valerie.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895November 30, 2012 - 1:28 pm

    Mike: It's safe to say Valerie is not a constitutional scholar. She's found some source that says what she likes, and feeds it to us without looking at it critically. We're doing her a service by providing that now. No reason not to be nice about it. It's frustrating when you see a president you don't like running roughshod over the Constitution, but I don't get too upset unless it's a violation of our civil rights. That's why I distiguish Obama from Bush. Bush's 4th amendment violations in the name of his powers as commander in chief were, and unfortunately remain, major concerns. I would like Obama to spend part of his second term figuring out how to unwind those without sacrificing national security too much. But I AM willing to sacrifice some security for freedom. As Ben Franklin said, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jennifer GossJanuary 16, 2013 - 11:16 am

    And one of my pet peeves - appointing Hilary Clinton as secretary of State, despite that wages for the position had been raised 3 or so times during her previous tenure in congress. He wrote an 'ethics waiver' to get around the Constitutional clause that bans any official from being appointed to a position whose pay was raised during their congress stint. Who knew all it took to amend the constitution was an 'ethics waiver'? Article I, Section 6: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office ... the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." People allowed it because they saw it as a 'minor' constitutional violation or because they felt the Saxbe fix of lowering the salary was a reasonable solution (despite again not being a *constitutional* fix, as reasonable as it might be to *amend* the constitution with the Saxbe solution - no one has ever bothered to propose it). There are no 'minor violations' and there are no 'ethics waivers' when it comes to the constitution.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.