When the president ignores the law—or makes his own laws, I call that Obama’s Laws! When someone breaks the law, they are known as a criminal. They can’t rewrite the laws. When that person disregards the law, what should we call it? Obama’s laws! Congress and the Supreme Court should both be taking action in outrage. The American people should be outraged too.
In June of 2011, writing for Forbes.com, I posed this question: “If you break the law in America, there is a good chance you will be caught and punished. Isn’t it odd that the highest office-holder in the land, President Barack Obama can ignore the law and have it go largely unnoticed and unpunished?” You can read more details about why I posed that question, but one had to do with the fact that President Obama had recently, completely ignored The Medicare Reform Act, which required him (by law) to submit a proposed remedy to Congress for this condition: “… a provision that if Medicare’s trustees forecast that general revenues will be required for 45% or more of the program’s payouts within a 7-year period, then the president must propose legislation to correct the problem within 15 days of his next budget submission.” Of course he hadn’t and still hasn’t done this—a direct violation of the law.
In January of 2012, I repeated that title in a Forbes.com post, but this time it was based on a different violation: “ [he] simply ignored the rules of law—this time about recess appointments. Obama’s excuse: “He was doing what was best for Americans.” Since then, the Courts have has ruled that the “recess appointments” I referred to were in fact, unlawful. Of course, to date, neither Obama nor Holder has done little or nothing about this one either. Yes, a few nominees were changed, to facilitate getting Senate approval, which is what the law said should have been done in the first place.
Let’s go back to the dictionary definitions of the actions I am describing:
Criminal: being or guilty of a crime
Crime: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially: a gross violation of law
George Will’s recent column thoroughly condemns Barack Obama’s actions as being either “tricky” or downright illegal. In it Will states, “Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “ Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: Brevity. Because there is no such authority.”
Charles Krauthammer frames the question even more clearly, when he asks if Obama can “write his own laws.” “In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first. At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.
I concur wholeheartedly with these perspectives. The country cannot tolerate a president who ignores the law—or makes his own laws—to fit his needs. The fundamental premise of the American government is that Congress writes the laws; the President executes (and obeys) them and the Supreme Court decides when there is a difference of opinion about the laws validity.
Nowhere are all three powers vested in the president—and for good reason—the potential for abuse is enormous. Welcome to the imperial reign of “Obama’s Laws.”
Who will step up to call Barack Obama out on his criminal behavior, and more important, who can stop him?