21 Jun

Obama’s Unconstitutional Acts

                                       

So let’s go down the list. He began with ObamaCare…which very well might be ruled unconstitutional quite soon. Most recently he bypassed Congress and enacted The Dream Act all by his lonesome after stating a year ago that he didn’t have the power to do that. Oh, lets not forget that he refuses to defend DOMA, a federal law passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. And now this:

President Obama on Wednesday asserted executive privilege over documents sought by a House panel ahead of its vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

It’s the first time Obama has used executive privilege since taking office. A White House aide said the president had gone longer without asserting the privilege in a congressional dispute than any other president in the last three decades.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said his panel was “evaluating” a letter from Deputy Attorney General James Cole asserting the privilege that arrived minutes before Issa’s committee was to begin contempt proceedings

He’s asserting deliberative process privilege instead of presidential executive privilege:

As I’ve written before, there are two types of executive privilege. One is a strong form rooted in the Constitution, called the presidential communication privilege. But there is another type, much weaker and rooted in common law instead of the Constitution, called the deliberative process privilege. That second, weaker variety is what President Obama invoked today regarding Holder.

It’s still the White House asserting the privilege, because only the president can assert executive privilege for his entire administration.

Allah:

The point of the “deliberative process privilege” is that you don’t want executive-branch officials afraid to be candid with each other in day to day operations for fear that their communications will later be subpoenaed by Congress and aired on the evening news. So Obama has an argument there; the counterargument is that, er, a privilege shouldn’t be abused as cover for hugely damaging and possibly illegal DOJ activity.

And John Hinderaker tears apart his use of the privilege: (read the whole post, he destroys all of their arguments)

the case that is most directly pertinent to Holder’s assertion of executive privilege is In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Circuit 1997), which, along with Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which cites and relies upon Espy, contains the most up to date judicial exposition of the doctrine of executive privilege. Unbelievably, Holder’s letter never cites or mentions the Espy case. If a first-year associate wrote a memorandum for me in which he failed even to mention the most significant case, I would fire him. (The EspyCourt noted that its holding as to how deep into the federal bureaucracy the presidential privilege may extend was in the context of a subpoena in a criminal proceeding, and a conflict between the executive and Congress might implicate different factors. That appropriate qualification in no way sheds any doubt on the Court’s exposition of the deliberative process privilege, as discussed below.)

Fifth: it is easy to understand why Eric Holder, functioning as a politician and not a lawyer, omitted any mention of the Espy case. That case lays out the legal framework under which Obama’s assertion of executive privilege will be judged. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the term “executive privilege” actually encompasses two distinct privileges:

“[E]xecutive privilege” is generally used to refer to a wide variety of evidentiary and substantive privileges that courts accord the executive branch. Consequently, we refer to the privileges asserted by the White House more specifically as the presidential communications privilege, or presidential privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. …

The most frequent form of executive privilege raised in the judicial arena is the deliberative process privilege; it allows the government to withhold documents and other materials that would reveal “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”

In the Fast and Furious case, the “presidential privilege” clearly does not apply. The administration has said that President Obama had nothing to do with any of the relevant events, and the president says that he learned of the Fast and Furious program “on the news.” And Holder’s letter makes it clear that it is the second type of executive privilege, the “deliberative process privilege,” on which the administration relies:

[The documents under subpoena] were created…in the course of the Department’s deliberative process concerning how to respond to congressional and related media inquiries into that operation. …

[T]he doctrine of executive privilege…encompasses Executive Branch deliberative communications. …

Presidents have repeatedly asserted executive privilege to protect confidential Executive Branch deliberative materials from congressional subpoena.

[At issue is] the confidentiality of Executive Branch deliberations….

But Holder’s letter completely fails to acknowledge what a weak reed the “deliberative process privilege” is in the circumstances of this case. In Espy, the court said:

The deliberative process privilege does not shield documents that simply state or explain a decision the government has already made or protect material that is purely factual….

The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. … For example, where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, ‘the privilege is routinely denied,’ on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve ‘the public’s interest in honest, effective government.’”

Emphasis added. Here, the committee’s subpoena is explicitly intended to explore issues of “government misconduct.”

This man swore to the entire country that he would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He has done everything but. Instead we may be seeing the most corrupt Administration in 40 years.

Exit quote:

According to internal DOJ documentation via a confidential source within the DOJ, Attorney General Eric Holder knows the entire story about Fast and Furious, had for a long time, and in fact approved the operation. Additionally memos show that President Obama had full knowledge of the program and received weekly briefings from DOJ personnel. They also detail that Holder ordered a “lockdown” and “cleansing” of documents after being briefed on the murder of border agent Brian Terry. Additionally internal memos, which Issa knows exists, detail how President Obama and his advisors were briefed on the incident and according to sources with knowledge of the content of the conversation and subsequent memos that there was a “concerted effort” to “put this story to pasture ASAP”.

Oh yes, they have something to hide.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in American Intelligence, Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Constitution, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Law, Law Enforcement, Mexico, Operation Fast & Furious, Politics, POWER GRAB!, Scandals. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, June 21st, 2012 at 6:00 am
| 2,716 views

21 Responses to Obama’s Unconstitutional Acts

  1. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 1

    Bush claimed executive privilege six time (some as trivial as his appointment of Harriet Meirs)—where was your voice then?

    ReplyReply
  2. annie says: 2

    Is it November yet???????????????????

    ReplyReply
  3. cali says: 3

    There’s also another memo where the various deaths resulting from F&F were discussed – labeling those died as ‘colleratal damage’.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nathan Blue says: 4

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): Context and cases, please? The argument isn’t that Obama is using it, rather why he is using it. Try to be objective and think critically.

    ReplyReply
  5. CharlieGee says: 5

    I recall how the Watergate Break-in started with such a quiet voice then built to a national crescendo. Issa could be the Sam Raeburn of this generation. O’Bama is so self-impressed I am sure there are Oval Office tapes to be scrutinized. The best example I can think of that illustrates the sinister glibness of Holder and O’Bama is that of the serpent in Genesis 3:13 ‘ The serpent begiled me, and I did eat’. That same spirit dwells today in those who would begile us with their forked tongues.
    Incidentally, it is no coincidence that the name of the one power that can overcome Satan ( Jesus ), is being progressively marginalized by those in the sway of what becomes the Anti-Christ. I realize I will be ridiculed by some who read this but, then, they have already sold out. One sure mark of those possessed by the serpent is that they cannot be influenced by factual truth or logical reasoning (1st John 4:6).

    ReplyReply
  6. Budvarakbar says: 6

    @Nathan Blue: Critical thinking and objectivity are anathemal to being a liberal

    ReplyReply
  7. Ditto says: 7

    The other problem for Holder is that; although he is the Attorney General and yes considered part of the Executive branch, the Justice Department isn’t, nor is the FBI or ATF. They are government agencies and their internal documents, communications etc. are not covered under Executive Privilege (outside of briefing reports to the office of the President, and documents that could be detrimental to the national defense.) Then again of those communications considered to advise the President, if they are part of an attempt to cover-up, Executive Privilege does not apply.

    ReplyReply
  8. Keyser Söze says: 8

    This entire debate is about what is, or is not Constitutional. In Madison v. Marbury, the court ruled…

    “that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html

    This in itself puts all politicians and government employees on notice, they are responsible for supporting and defending the Constitution…the reason they are required to raise their hand and take an oath to that affect. When these people act in a manner which is repugnant to the Constitution and their oath, they can be declared…”domestic enemies”. With this declaration the people have recourse to remove them from their position of power or employment.

    Obama’s behavior is not and has not been in compliance with the Constitution.

    His autocratic refusal to prosecute crime because it does not fit his narrative, or he needs votes, does not comport with the intent of the Constitution or the laws passed by Congress…only dictators act in such a fashion.

    His under the table assault on the 2nd Amendment, by providing weapons to foreign criminal organizations, in an attempt to garner public opinion to abolish guns in America. A plan to disarm the people so his Communist Socialist agenda can be advanced with little or no resistance…only dictators act in such fashion.

    His edicts that public money be directed to programs that only he feels are worthy (only Congress can spend)…while ignoring the Constitutional mandates set fourth for the protection of the nation…border security and the military, being the two most important of those mandates…only a dictator acts in such fashion.

    His installation of political cronies in the Justice Department to CHA, when it is discovered he is acting outside the law…only dictators act in such fashion, or the on their way up ones do.

    His release of “Top Secret” information of on going operations around the world…treason of the first order…aiding and abetting the enemy…only a dictator acts in such fashion.

    His deliberate support of the “Arab Spring” causing energy prices to soar…further weakening the economies of the world, for the purpose of nationalizing the energy companies at some point in the future. NO!, he is not allowed to be in contempt of court when his gulf drilling moratorium was over turned…only a dictator acts in such a fashion.

    By now we can see a clear picture emerging…it is all about him and what he wants, and the rest of the world be damned. These characteristics of self-centeredness mixed with a narcissistic personality, are the traits of a dictator. For the present he is holding back, so as not to frighten people too much with his intent, but if given an additional four years, it will be an all out race to turning America into a true dictatorship.

    The Washington Times has just declared Obama a domestic enemy.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/17/curl-obama-a-domestic-enemy-of-the-us-constitution/?page=all#pagebreak

    ReplyReply
  9. Common Sense says: 9

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): Hey idiot, what’s your point. 0-bama is your stupid President so let’s focus on his failures for a change. Geeeez what douche!!

    ReplyReply
  10. Common Sense says: 10

    @Nathan Blue: OK idiot, why is HE using it??

    ReplyReply
  11. Common Sense says: 11

    @Common Sense: My bad, you where on it correctly.

    ReplyReply
  12. GREAT COMMENTS ON THE POST AND ON
    THE GROUP OF BLOGGERS,
    he sure used his executive order signature a lot , and some are for sending a lot of money
    in foreign countries, and executive orders to get thousands of PALESTINIANS IN AMERICA AS REFUGEES FED AND LODGE AND PAID ALL ON THE POCKETS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ,
    EARLY IN HIS JOB. AND POWER GIVEN TO HIM.

    ReplyReply
  13. Nan G says: 13

    Obama sent out another surrogate to run an unconstitutional idea up the flag pole to see if we’ve reached ”outrage fatigue,” yet or not.
    Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, calls for forced voting comes in an op/ed for Bloomberg News:

    “…..[N]o U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.
    ….Compulsory voting, as exists in Australia and more than two dozen other countries, would fix that problem.

    Orszag is calling for mandatory voting on this basis at the same time that the Obama administration pushes against Citizens United, attempting to bridge the money gap [First Amendment right] Obama now faces against Mitt Romney.
    It is also no coincidence that Obama wants mandatory voting at this point in time – it is widely accepted that mandatory voting would raise participation rates in heavily Democrat-leaning populations, particularly minorities.

    The irony, of course, is that the Democrats seem fine with forcing people to the polls, but object strenuously to people showing ID at the polls when they show up voluntarily.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/Desperation-Obama-Surrogate-Calls-To-Make-Voting-Mandatory

    Yes, this would be unpopular.

    ReplyReply
  14. Nathan Blue says: 14

    @Common Sense: The above article is trying to parse that out, so perhaps you should read it? Not sure why name-calling has been invoked.

    ReplyReply
  15. Nathan Blue says: 15

    @Common Sense: @Common Sense: Sorry, just figure out what was going on. No worries!

    ReplyReply
  16. Sua Sponte says: 16

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): I see the emptiness has reared its head again….You completely digress to “Bush did it”…How novel…..A federal agent was murdered with the weapons sold to the cartel by the DoJ and somehow you equate this to Bush?….Yawn…The DoJ knows they screwed the pooch on this and went running to Dear Leader to cover them…The whole point of the “operation” was to flood the Mexican streets with U.S. weapons, which would be used in crimes of course, traced back to the U.S. and thus enable the limp wristed progressives into screeching for tougher weapons laws….The DoJ is directly responsible for Agent Terrys death, plain and simple, exceptionally resposible in that there was no plan of tracking the weapons whatsoever, nor any oversight…Now that Dear Leader has signed off on the executive privilage, this can only mean one thing….The WH knew about this and have gone into duck and cover mode….Unfortunately, the primary puppets will walk on this, they might throw a couple low hanging fruit workers under the bus, a Dear Leader specialty, but the main players will walk on being accomplices to murder…

    ReplyReply
  17. Mike O'Malley says: 17

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    Bush claimed executive privilege six time (some as trivial as his appointment of Harriet Meirs)—where was your voice then?

    “Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/), (Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy

    “Also Known as: “You Too Fallacy”
    Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

    This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of “argument” has the following form:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
    Therefore X is false.

    The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true – but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person’s claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false. ”

    .

    It also begs the question whether Pres. Bush’s invocations of Executive Privileged were justified. Rest assured however Senator Obama was eager to explain that in no case was Pres. Bush justified.

    Fallacy: Begging the Question

    Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.
    Description of Begging the Question

    Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.

    Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
    Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

    This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

    Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle. “

    ReplyReply
  18. Mike O’ Malley
    hi,
    that is a good one, some fall in that assuming [ you too fallacy],
    thinking it will pass un-notice,
    yes it is notice by some keen ones who decide to check on what they just read,
    but for many dont
    follow up, by exposing the false owner of that lie,
    it’s not so bad if the intent is of good will, but if it is to demolish a person, it is for sure devastating and can go very far in time as it can resurface again and again not ever expose by the keen one or another keen reader,
    yes, expressing our thoughts is a part of bringing a self judging of a sentence,
    it’s okay if the intent are to raize the profile of the target, but it can really is bad and destructive on one if we mean to use him or her to win an argument,
    you raise that point which is widly used on both sides, good and bad.
    good that the link help to support or demolish some who come to infuse their lies so to promote their target, but , but, then, what if the link was quoting from another link which was quoting from another link which was quoting from another link ? that’s where our keen judgement is so important,
    and if we don’t have a keen judgement? then, the BLOG IS HELPING TO FIND THE REAL SOURCE THIS BY THE MANY COMMENTS, BY THE MANY DIFFERENT BLOGGERS, I THINK,
    FLOPPING ACES is the place to seek for finding the real source, thank you for that reminder, it is a good conversation piece, and a reminder for all, because we love to speak our mind on any issues posted by the EXCELLENT AUTHORS
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  19. Pingback: Is The Obama SS About To Be Revealed?

  20. Pingback: U.S.S.A (united socialist states of america) UPDATE. « The Daily Cheese.

  21. Pingback: We the People call for an Impeachment of Obama!!! - Page 5 - Grasscity.com Forums

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>