May 22, 2016
A Part-time Law Lecturer vs. the ConstitutionBy Clarice FeldmanIt’s a lie often repeated that Obama was a Constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago law school. In fact, he was just a lecturer there for a short time who never much impressed his colleagues. Watching this administration in action one wonders what, if anything, he understands about the Constitution at all.
His is an administration based on flouting it.It’s true that the judicial process moves slowly and such conduct can continue for a while until halted, but repeatedly the courts are catching up.
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the administration 20 times. As Ted Cruz noted:
President Obama has seen 20 unanimous defeats before the Supreme Court during the five and a half years of his presidency, a pace that outstrips former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, according to a review of his record since 2009 by Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas). “President Obama’s unanimous Supreme Court loss rate, for the five and half years of his presidency, is nearly double that of President Bush and is 25 percent greater than President Clinton,” Cruz notes in a survey of how Obama’s lawyers performed before the high court. Bush lost 15 cases unanimously, while Clinton lost 23 -- but those defeats came over an eight-year period. When Cruz released his first report on the topic in April of 2013, he pointed out that Obama had lost nine cases unanimously since January of 2012. This latest installment takes account of the four most recent unanimous rulings against Obama, and the seven handed down by the court before 2012. The defeats include cases such: as Judalang v. Holder, when the court faulted the Obama team for making an “arbitrary and capricious” attempt to rewrite the rules governing who is eligible for relief from deportation; Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, in which Obama’s lawyers argued wrongly “that the Department of Veterans Affairs can wholly ignore a veteran’s appeal of a VA regional office’s benefits ruling when the appeal was not filed within the 120-day deadline”; and Bond v. United States, in which the “DOJ argued that an international treaty gave Congress the power to create federal criminal law for wholly local conduct.”
The range of the administration’s abuse of its powers is substantial.
Thus, by way of example, one court has held that funneling payments to insurers to cover co-pays by insured low-income people which funds were never authorized by Congress, could be the subject of a Congressional lawsuit challenging the disbursements.
"Only Congress can appropriate funds for federal programs and so Congress faces a unique institutional injury when the executive branch decides to take that particular prerogative upon itself," according to a blog post from Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and an outspoken Obamacare critic.
States have rights to set their own laws and are mounting a fight over the bathroom edict.The Little Sisters of the Poor dug in their heels at the administration’s commands respecting birth control insurance coverage for their employees and won in the Supreme Court:
Courts have ruled against the SEC for violating the appointments clause of the Constitution (Article II of the U.S. Constitution).
They ruled against Obama’s “intrasession appointments” to the NLRB:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations.
Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.
“The Senate is in session when it says it is,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court, stressing that if the Senate is able to conduct business, that is enough to keep the president from making recess appointments.
more at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/a_parttime_law_lecturer_vs_the_constitution.html
