The following editorial appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” — Barack Obama, March 30, 2007
Five years on, that claim made by presidential candidate Barack Obama has begun to sound a little shaky.
First there was his administration’s tacit embrace of the unitary executive claims of the Bush administration to wage a semi-secret war-by-drone. Now the Obama administration has expanded Bushian secrecy by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of CIA drone operations about which it previously boasted.
And last Monday came the president’s startlingly inept claim that the “unelected” Supreme Court would be taking an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns a law (i.e., health care reform) duly passed by Congress.
Professor Obama surely would have known better.
Mr. Obama does not ordinarily misspeak. Indeed, he parses his language excruciatingly carefully. His remarks about the court on Monday were so out of character that they suggest one of two explanations:
One: He was frustrated by the justices’ questioning in the previous week’s oral arguments on challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The justices’ questions suggested they didn’t understand the issues at hand. The famously verbose Justice Antonin Scalia seemed alarmed that he might have to read a 2,700-page bill.
Two: The president has decided to run against activist judges in the fall campaign. This is something Republicans ordinarily do, but there’s nothing to say a Democrat can’t do it, particularly as Supreme Court justices tend to be a president’s most enduring legacy.
Whoever is elected in November almost certainly will have to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 79 and recovering from pancreatic cancer, and perhaps two conservatives, Justice Scalia, who is 76, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, 75.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder tried to walk back his boss’s unfortunate statement from the day before. He acknowledged the court’s right to interpret laws, but asserted that they are “fairly deferential” when it comes to overturning statutes passed by Congress. Perhaps, but it is not unknown, surely not unprecedented and wholly in keeping with the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Mr. Holder also has played a key role in defending, though not fully and frankly, administration policies on drone warfare and the targeted execution-by-drone of an American citizen working for al-Qaida.
The war on terror has seen the military and the CIA collaborate in ways not seen since Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. When CIA director Leon Panetta was named Defense Secretary last summer, he was replaced at the CIA by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the country’s best-known solider.
Both the Joint Special Operations Center and the CIA maintain overlapping “kill lists.” Both have fleets of Predator and Reaper drone aircraft. Mr. Obama himself openly discussed the program in January in an Internet forum.
But officially the program doesn’t exist. That’s the excuse the CIA is using to avoid disclosing records in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. To acknowledge its existence could reveal critical secrets, you see, even though Mr. Panetta joked last October that as Defense Secretary, “I have a helluva lot more weapons available to me in this job than I had at the CIA. Although the Predators aren’t that bad.”
Lots of yucks, not much transparency. If this were Con Law 101, the administration would flunk.
Comments (39)
Add comment"Epic Fail"
"Epic Fail"
Easy Answer
Considering that Obama is perhaps the most egotistical man alive he would most certainly give himself an A+. Just seeing his face on Easter basketballs at the White House is a stunning example of his megalomania. On the one hand he has insisted that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, but yet has the audacity to claim that the Supreme Court cannot overturn on constitutional grounds a law passed by Congress. But let's face reality. He knows. Of course he knows. He just doesn't care.
Liberal Minds
Another typical liberal mind has shown itself. When one doesn't have an argument, attack everyone else. Poor little libby loser, there, Art. What, you didn't get your talking points downloaded yet this morning?
akjim - +1
akjim - +1
Practical application
Gaffes, misstatements, and lobbying for pet projects can be forgiven—these are part of the job; but POTUS has stepped off on an agenda he doesn’t have the experience or expertise to pilot. The legitimacy of ACA is being mulled over by the High Court BECAUSE of Prof. Obama’s dubious interpretation of constitutional law.
Two possible outcomes: 1) the individual mandate is upheld and Professor Obama is a Constitutional Grand Master; or 2) SCOTUS strikes it down, and President Obama makes the high court a central campaign issue, which plays well with his re-election strategy – activist judiciary in the rich 1%ers’ pockets.
It was a bold move – seizing the moment where his party held the majority in both houses and he could appoint Justices Kagan & Sotomayor to the Bench. But at some point during the breach-load there should have been a voice in Prof. Obama’s head asking, “are you SURE this is legal?”
The other stuff mentioned about his ability to translate campaign rhetoric into command decisions are the result inexperience meeting up with the responsibilities and realities of the office.
Grendel
We are in considerable alignment. I'm sure Obama knew that the ACA was shaving it close constitutionally, but he was left with few other choices to achieve his healthcare goals. A universal healthcare system was not in the cards politically, and the status quo is not sustainable.
You are correct. If the SCOTUS upholds the ACA, Obama wins a victory. If they shoot it down, he runs against activist judges. He can also make a case for universal healthcare rather than this genetically engineered insurance program the ACA has become.
Romney would likely be largely indistinguishable from Obama policy wise, but this single issue gives Obama the advantage in the election.
@Lat58
Obama couldn't help himself with his approach because he's never been accountable for anything in his life. The national debt means nothing to him, and so neither does the escalating price tag on Obamacare.
But that train's left the station. I don't think it was a calculated assault on the Constitution-- only because the execution was so clumsy and amateurish. I think it was a disregard for the Constitution: that old sheet of paper is too passe for his intellect; couldn't be bothered with it.
Wrong, Grendel
Quite the opposite. Obama was the first accountable and responsible president in awhile who demonstrated the courage to confront the approaching healthcare train wreck head on. Politicians have known it was going to crush us for years, overwhelming current budget deficits. Obama knew he'd be paying a big political penalty for dealing with it.
As far as the ACA increasing the budget deficit, again you're wrong. It will end up reducing it. That comes from the nonpartisan CBO. I quote their latest report on the matter:
"CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period"
CBO
Latitude, catch up with your talking points. the CBO now expects Obama's plan to cost almost twice as much as he originally lied to us about. If continued this will be a deficit and debt disaster.
bakatcha Lat58
I thought Bill Clinton gave it a whack back in the 90s, or at least his wife did. Then they got distracted or something.
How does anyone KNOW what the ACA is going to do? So far the cost of care, which no one has seen yet, keeps going up. This is playing with numbers! Is the monthly cost of health care going up, down, or about the same? And you know you dont get something from nothing, so where's the weenie? Where do the savings come from in a national plan, which no one knows what is going to be covered by it, if not from melding, slashing, or gutting the $$$ from somewhere else? Seniors are scared; vets are thinking BOHICA; and businesses will either have to cut staff or pay the "tax" so their employees default to Medicaid....is that what you meant by "the first accountable and responsible president"? That's courage?
@akjim
He didn't lie! He didn't know any better, but he did it anyway.
Remember, there's always one plausible variable with Obama, whether it's a patsy, a tsunami, an environmental impact study, or one of those pesky stray Bush fires -- there's always something that keeps him out of the crosshairs of accountability.
Well...
if true, he did have eight years to learn from Bush.
both barrels!
there's no "if" about it, unless you're willing to swallow a whole lotta circumstantials:
there's the obvious patsies: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN; then there's the "I would'ves but" Worst Financial Crisis since the Visigoths sacked Rome, wasn't convinced by 3 EIS's (2 under his administration) to turn on Keystone; HE couldn't cap the BP spill but he could sure as hell turn off the Gulf's economy; and then he did inherit 2 wars and created a 3rd.
About that 3rd one...is it any wonder the Pakistanis weren't cooperative (about UBL) when we started drone-scrogging their territory? THAT policy started under Obama (unprecedented, but constitutional?). Imagine coming home and finding your house half blown away because Hassan al-Bagofdunuts MIGHT have had Taliban connections and his cousin lived next to you? Neither have been seen since. You hate America now. Drone diplomacy is the 21st century answer to gunboat diplomacy: start lobbing shells into the treeline and all you do is [filtered word] off the natives.
Say what you may about Bush (and I'm no big fan of him because he didn't have the stones to call it what it is), but Bush at least had to come up with a plan to win the peace. Then Obama screws that up and we wind up losing the whole lot AND torquing everyone off.
You pressed my button with that one, fromdustreturned! But you're fundamentally wrong: the thing about Obama is no one can tell him anything; he's un-teachable, and that's dangerous.
@grendel - finally, some fire
@grendel - finally, some fire in the belly!! I love it.
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention?
Obama is a narcissist beyond reproach and he lies straight to our faces. We all used to wring our hands and wonder was he just uninformed or in over his head?
Now we know that he knows exactly what he's doing and lying is his MO. It's really frightening.
Did you hear him today talking to the mush brained college kids at some obscure college in Florida how the Buffett rule is just like what Reagan did with taxes and they all cheered and clapped.
BO's snark is the most annoying - the mocking and the making light of serious situations is almost unbearable. I can't listen to him anymore.
Talk about uninformed (that's you 58) if you're still touting BOCare as a money saver and quoting the CBO.
Try to explain this funny Democrat math for us -
"Under Obamacare, Medicare cuts [$500 billion] are transferred into Medicaid to pay for the expansion of uninsured coverage outlined above–but, it is also simultaneously credited as savings to the [Medicare] trust fund.
The CBO and Medicare’s own economic estimators already said the government can’t spend the same money twice."
Incorrect akjim
You're quoting talking points fom Rush and friends. Read the actual CBO report that came out last month. I did. They adjusted their cost projection upwards by 2.9%.
Factcheck.org debunked your "doubling" claim.
I do find it ironic that conservatives like Grendel question any cost projections from the CBO, but when you all are told (erroneously) that the projections have doubled, then the CBO's numbers are completely valid. Select your facts much?
Grendel
You're correct. Clinton did take a stab at it, and paid a heavy political price, which is why he dropped it. All the more reason why Obama was demonstrating courage by tackling it, knowing he'd ay the same price.
You question any cost projections. OK, if true, what's to say that the costs won't be far lower in the end? The CBO considered all of the issues you brought up in their projection.
The only certain projections are that healthcare costs are going to crush us. Still waiting for a credible solution from conservatives.
Lat
Lat, as usual you're so far up Obama's bum you can't see the light of day. Check out recent comments by Chuck Blahous, an Obama appointed trustee for Social Security and Medicare.
@akjim: check out recent
@akjim: check out recent facts presented to you by reality. According to you, Obama is an over-the-top, arrogant, cowardly, stupid, shrewd, supervillain who deserves no credit for anything good that happens during his term and deserves all the blame for everything bad.
In essence, you think our president is a Bond villain. I wouldn't be surprised if you seriously thought he's wasting tax money to build a secret volcano lair in Hawaii.
Good Morning Lat58
Clinton, or maybe it was Mrs Clinton, dropped it because their plan was labelled too socialist (progressive wasn't in mode back then), and then Somalia boiled over and he got distracted. Bottom line: it wasn't palatable in the 90s because support was tenuous and would've cost a lot of legislators their re-election.
Obama seized the opportunity, that's all. It meshes with his vision of Big Govt fixing things. And here's some insight: your money is HIS money, first. In Obama-world the feds are the thru-put between what you earn and what they let you keep. That's why the debt means nothing, unemployment numbers mean nothing -- why should it when millions of Americans are still working to feed the beast? Because Big Govt will give you everything you need to keep on working.
Oh, Grendel
What shall we do with you? You think you're Van Gogh, but all you paint are caricatures...
Liberals oppose the established hierarchy, which is largely made up of powerful moneyed interests and cultural relics that promote inequality and inequity. We are not for big government, per se, but we need something sufficiently large and powerful enough to oppose those hierarchies. And government usually fits this bill, given that government is supposed to protect and support its populace.
In your world, we subscribe to a dichotomy. Liberals are not against government, therefore they must be for large, overreaching government. Which is incorrect. We are for good government, and we do not subscribe to dichotomies. The government does well when it legitimizes gay marriage, or enfranchises previously disenfranchised groups of people. It does bad when it allows police to strip search you for a moving offense, or spies on its own citizens, or sponsors dictators in far away countries.
I'm hope this cleared things up for you. I fully expect once you read and understand this, you'll cease posting misinformed statements.
PP: rare form, but still skint
I think you've made a breakthrough, a proud moment indeed, admitting that you're a liberal. Unfortunately there is no 12 step recovery for you.
Because with the liberal it is him vs the establishment. "Liberal" -- as in pushing the edges of the Constitution, taking the most liberal interpretations of it, in order to retain a modicum of legitimacy in polite conversation. But that requires making assumptions, liberal assumptions that often take your position into the theater of the absurd, especially when you mistake "liberal" for liberty, then all is owed to you. About right? about absurd. No 12 steps for you.
Um, I've never been coy about
Um, I've never been coy about being a liberal. Once again, you seem to exist in your own world, separate from reality.
Also, Obama isn't a liberal. He is the most conservative Democrat since before FDR and would more appropriately be labeled "centrist." I know you want him to be a liberal, a big, bad Satan you can hate and prop up to discredit liberalism (which brought you the United States), but you really can't. The last liberal president we had was Lyndon Johnson, who wasn't without his own faults.
Anyway, kudos on the intellectual honesty, Grendel. I'm sure it's easy for you to accept your own positions as true when you argue honestly, refuse to misrepresent others' positions, and change your opinions to fit the facts (rather than vice versa).
That's the most absurdly stupid
piece of drivel I've ever heard out of you, Grendel.
"Because with the liberal it is him vs the establishment" - correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this entirely what you are screaming about right now? You and all intelligent, liberty-loving, hard-working, patriotic Americans against the current liberal, evil establishment? If all you scream about is "big government", then isn't that you against the establishment??
People generally only scream about "big government" when that government is doing something with which they do not agree. If said government is pursuing a course of action with which they DO agree, well, then, regardless of method, all is fine and good.
If I had seen similar moral outrage from you and Calypso and some others under the Bush administration, I'd be willing to take all of this more seriously. I am free to criticize Obama as much as I like, and there are any numbers of things he has done that I do indeed criticize, especially with regards to digital surveillance and censorship/control of digital networks. The ability to administer both criticism and praise where merited, regardless of party or affiliation, is the mark of an informed and educated electorate.
@PP "Obama isn't a liberal"
"Obama isn't a liberal" because he's not fringe enough. The liberal says, "Take it! Take it NOW! Whenever will we have this opportunity again?" Quick, before they're onto you!
Why is it Obama cant run on his achievements? Not even the short list? Is it because 1) there are none, 2) they're still in litigation, or 3) they would spook the independents?
And these independents (if it is indeed option 3), are they conservatives, left-minded, or "centrists"? If they're centrists, then that begs the question why a centrist Dem incumbent would have concerns about these wobbly voters falling prey to "powerful moneyed interests" and a cultural relic like Gov Romney.
I walked the dog there for you. No hedging or wordplay.
@from dust: casting asparagus on my character, et tu?
1) The establishment is established. Guess what it’s established upon?
2) Wrong assumption re: Big Govt. Careful with the “regardless of method” angle – that’s where Obama got himself in the current fix with SCOTUS. The evidence is irrefutable, though symptomatic: Massive regulatory body, unfettered spending, and no plausible measures of accountability (remember that “jobs created or saved” standard? Biden doesn’t, and he’s the Recovery Honcho).
3) I agree with your last. There was a time when I would’ve given him a chance – I would’ve sought out a praise-worthy occasion. But the reality is America got sold a bad bag of goods. His administration will be the highwater mark for liberals when they “could’ve”, and new standard for Worst since Carter.
Et tu, Grendel?
"Et tu" is Latin for "and you." Your sentence makes no sense. As with most of your statements, you failed to ensure this one was actually correct.
Let's look at Obama's achievements (and the BS excuses your kind makes to deny him credit). You're completely clueless if you think ACA is his only achievement.
1) He killed bin Laden. NO HE DIDN'T--IT WAS THE NAVY SEALS WHO ARE UNDER HIS COMMAND.
2) He ended DADT. OH WAIT, umm, GAY SEX IN THE TRENCHES BAD!
3) He prevented a nasty recession from becoming a depression. NO HE DIDN'T--ALL THE ECONOMISTS AND PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW THINGS ARE WRONG!
4) He ended the war in Iraq. BUT, umm, wait, I'll think of an excuse... He's secretly a Muslim extremist trying to prevent the U.S. from bringing liberty to the Middle East?
5) He made the credit card industry less predatory. RABBLE RABBLE! FREE MARKETS! BLARG!
And there are many more.
Maybe you just can't think of any of Obama's accomplishments because you don't actually stay informed? Judging from your posts, that does seem likely.
Once again, though, good job on the intellectual honesty. Some people make inherently dishonest arguments, and I don't understand how they can reconcile what is essentially lying with the belief that their views are correct (how can an argument that needs a lie to prop it up be right?). But not you!
I've been made
You've got me pegged! How about I take these one at a time, separately. This could take awhile...
1) He killed bin Laden. NO HE DIDN'T--IT WAS THE NAVY SEALS WHO ARE UNDER HIS COMMAND.
Believe it or not, this is to his credit because we've had UBL in our sights (quite literally) since 2001, but the shot was denied because it would've required taking out everyone in close proximity to the SoB, and some of these collaterals were from the House of Saud.
Obama was on watch when UBL was isolated and he authorized the mission, to his credit. Anything less would've been dereliction of duty. But giving the body full religious honors was bad judgment. It sent the wrong message to the audience. This is Good v Bad, and in the muslim mindset Obama ensured UBL would get his paradise.
btw, I suspect you've read Bill Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Remember the part where Brutus stuck him in the back? Do you know what aspersions are? I had to look that word up, but then, I am slow.
2012
I hope Americans can remember we're all one country after this election. It's getting ugly out there.
@p - grow up if you want to
@p - grow up if you want to have discussions with the adults. You're looking like a brat.
And thank you for disputing your list of 5 wonderful "achievements" that your hero BO has accomplished. It saved us conservatives a lot of time.
And then you hit us with the big crescendo, 'you're just a liar.'
Hey dust, to change the subject just a little - what da ya think of those former NASA scientists exposing the agenda in the agency?
DADT
1. I could be way-off with this guess, but I don't think you've ever served in uniform.
2. The US military is not the proving grounds for social experimentation.
3. DADT made an issue of military policy into a national issue (under Clinton, who admittedly loathed the military, which created an irreparable rift between him and the JCS).
4. Obama reversed it because he made it a campaign issue. It was easy for him, because he has never served in uniform and has clue zero about the the notion of "good order and discipline".
5. Our military is effective because we have uniformity like nowhere else in the country, in the world. We have gone to great lengths to be gender blind, but there is no escaping the impact of allowing servicemen and women to buck the uniformity by blurring the gender lines. It is willfully disruptive to "good order and discipline" of the unit.