Ways Obama tramples the U.S. Constitution

Another member of ATS challenged me to show how Mr. Obama is trampling on the U.S. Constitution. I'm more than happy to oblige.

1. Appointment of Czars are unconstitutional

This violates Article II, Section 2. "[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

These Czars are not heads of departments. However they have been granted powers of which the extent isn't fully known. As such, they function as "shadow" czars.

Also in agreement of this assessment that czars are unconstitutional is Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

Source: www.politico.com...

Also in agreement of this assessment that czars are unconstitutional is Sen. Ron Paul.

“They are not authorized (by the constitution), and not approved by the Senate, but Obama’s not the only guilty party.”

Source: moneynews.newsmax.com...

HR7321, the Auto Industry Bailout bill, would have granted the president the right to appoint a "car czar", but this bill died in the Senate in December 2008.

2. The Auto Industry bailout done by Obama was unconstitutional

Both Bush and Obama participated in the auto industry bailout, however the way Obama did it was unconstitutional. Why? Bush used Congressionally-approved TARP funds which probably violated the Treasury Department mandate that the funds were used to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions, and the auto industry doesn't exactly count as a financial institution. Obama, on the other hand, determined that he would use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler, with no authorization.

Obama might insist that his authority comes from Article I, Section 8. ""The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." The "General Welfare" Clause.

However it was Thomas Jefferson who said "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Additionally, James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

HR 7321 (The Auto Industry Bailout Bill) would have allocated non-direct-taxpayer funds for this, but it died in the Senate in December 2008.

3. Government ownership of private business (percentage of General Motors via the auto industry bailout)

Violation of the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Specifically, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government is allowed to own a private business. And because this is the Constitution, the government is only allowed to act within the powers granted by the Constitution. It's not a matter of 'the Constitution didn't say I couldn't do that, so I'm going to do that'.

4. Redistribution of Wealth is unconstitutional (clear evidence with Obama's 'spread the wealth around' comment)

Not only are Obama's 'spread the wealth around' ideologies unconstitutional, but this makes the current health care plan which seeks to tak the wealthy and pay for health care unconstitutional as it is redistribution of wealth at the federal level.

Again, this violates the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I encourage anyone else with clear examples to contribute.

why would anyone wish to contribute...this has all been dealt with, in the court system which ajudicates constitutional law, which by the way is how the constitution instructs our government to operate.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by jimmyx]

I think every president in the last 40 years has violated the constitution 100's if not 1000's of times. It's a freaking shame how our constitution is just a figure of speech these days and not a matter of law.

Didn't Bush and Clinton both have czars? I know they did, they just weren't talked about in the media as much. I think Bush had 18 and Clinton had 14. I'm not sure though but i'll look it up.

GWB had 47 czars and Obama is down to 32

en.wikipedia.org...

I wish the author of the OP had consciousness to do some research before succumbing to his desire to just bash Barack Hussein.

Bush had 47 Czars.

Reagan started the practice.

Czars have absolutely no power within our government.

Czars are simply fact finding groups that work at the pleasure for the President.


Find some other quack theory to rail against this President. This one has been dead for months.

I don't care much for czars either,But did you complain when"W" had 47 of them?Or did you not notice because you were happy with cowboy Bush?


[edit on 13-11-2009 by greydaze]

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
Bush had 47 Czars.

Reagan started the practice.

Czars have absolutely no power within our government.

Czars are simply fact finding groups that work at the pleasure for the President.


Find some other quack theory to rail against this President. This one has been dead for months.

yup, and it still comes back on these pages, time after time...Czars are JUST A NICKNAME!!!! if these people want to keep posting these threads, about subjects that have been talked to death, over and over ,and over, and over ,and over...why can't we here CALL THEM NAMES AND REDICULE THEM???

Calling GWB a cowboy is an insult to real cowboys. =)

My second line agrees.

Wasn't it Dubya who said :
" The Constitution ? It's just a goddamned piece of paper".

I think that Obama is in cahoots with the Bushes just as slick Willy Clinton was.

Just as Jesse Ventura says, our political system is just like Coke and Pepsi. Different labels but still the same, its all just Cola once you look inside.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
GWB had 47 czars and Obama is down to 32

en.wikipedia.org...

I wish the author of the OP had consciousness to do some research before succumbing to his desire to just bash Barack Hussein.

I want to preface my next statement by saying that I am not defending Bush in any way. Just providing perspective.

Bush had 47 czars in 8 years. Obama has had 32 in not even one year.

And you are right that czars are not supposed to have any power. If they just advise the President they are 100% legal. However, its when Presidents give them power and duties to enforce outside of the administration that they are unconstitutional.

Example: Obama's pay czar. Not confirmed by the Senate, but Obama GAVE HIM the power to cut any and all salaries he wishes at companies receiving govt funds. This is not an advisory position. Then you have Obama's environmental czar actually coordinating policy within other govt agencies and directing what to focus on or do. These are powers Czars are not supposed to have. They are strictly supposed to ADVISE the President. This is where the unconstitutional part is concerned. Obama creating Czar positions isn't the issue. Them having power is.

reply to post by johnny2127


Would be great if you would provide references to back up the claims about Obama'a Czar powers. I'm getting tired of looking up some of the claims people make here.

Thanks in advance.... respectfully.



[edit on 13-11-2009 by Anamnesis]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
GWB had 47 czars and Obama is down to 32

en.wikipedia.org...

I wish the author of the OP had consciousness to do some research before succumbing to his desire to just bash Barack Hussein.

Oh I did. I know that Bush had 47 Czars and Johnny2127 had is completely right when they said establishing a Czar wasn't unconstitutional, it's the powers given to them that are unconstitutional when they do anything except report to the president.

In fact, I'll list Bush's Czars for you:

Abstinence Czar (Randal Tobias)
AIDS Czar (4 Czars: Scott Evertz, Joe O’Neill, Carol Thompson, Jeffrey Crowley)
Bank Bailout Czar (Neel Kashkari)
Bioethics Czar ( Leon Kass)
Bird flu Czar (Stewart Simonson)
Birth control czar (Erik Keroack)
Budget czar (3 Czars: Mitchell Daniels, Joshua Bolton, Rob Portman)
Clean Up Czar (2 Czars: Jessie Roberson & James Rispoli)
Communications Czar (Dan Bartlett)
Cyber Security Czar, Cyber Czar (2 Czars: Richard Clarke, Rod Beckstrom)
Democracy Czar (Elliott Abrams)
Domestic Policy Czar (Karl Rove)
Drug Czar (John P. Walters)
Faith-Based Czar, Faith Czar (4 Czars: Don Willett, John Dilulio, Jim Towey, Jay Hein)
Food Safety Czar (David W.K. Acheson)
Global AIDS Czar (2 Czars: Randall Tobias, Mark Dybul)
Health Czar for WTC, World Trade Center Health Czar (John Howard)
Health IT Czar (David Brailer)
Homeland Security Czar (Michael Chertoff)
Homeless Czar, Homelessness Czar (Phil Mangano)
Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar, Hurricane Katrina Recovery Czar (Donald E. Powell)
Intelligence Czar (2 Czars: John Negroponte & John Michael McConnell)
Manufacturing Czar (2 Czars: Albert Frink & William G. Sutton)
Policy Czar (Micahel Gerson)
Public Diplomacy Czar (2 Czars: Karen Hughes & James Glassman)
Reading Czar (G. Reid Lyon)
Regulatory Czar (2 Czars: John D. Graham & Susan Dudley)
Science Czar (John Marburger)
Terrorism Czar (3 Czars: Richard A. Clarke, Wayne Downing, John O. Brennan)
War Czar (Douglas Lute)

And as I said before, another ATS poster challenged me to show 3 ways that Obama trampled the Constitution. As it was off-topic to the original post, ATS requires that a new post be created which is what I did. Sorry if you have a problem with my following the ATS rules, but you can go whine to a mod if you don't like it.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by sos37]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
GWB had 47 czars and Obama is down to 32

en.wikipedia.org...

I wish the author of the OP had consciousness to do some research before succumbing to his desire to just bash Barack Hussein.

wow cry much? just because bush did it doesnt mean its ok. bush is no longer our president, so rather than looking into the past the op is just pointing out the current presidents faults. if we were to hold each president accountable this would be a very long thread

Originally posted by Anamnesis
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Would be great if you would provide references to back up the claims about Obama'a Czar powers. I'm getting tired of looking up some of the claims people make here.

Thanks in advance.... respectfully.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Anamnesis]

He's talking about Kenneth Feinberg. And I believe this will cover what you're looking for.

www.reuters.com...

Read the first line:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The man who has the power to set pay on Wall Street is hitting the road for a series of speeches before he has even publicly testified before Congress.

and also:

www.nypost.com...

How is it that a 'pay czar' is in any position to make demands of a private business, even one that accepted government bailout funds?

The bailout itself is unconstitutional. That Feinberg has any power other than advising the president is also a violation.

reply to post by johnny2127

Bush had 47 czars in 8 years. Obama has had 32 in not even one year.

OH MY GOD.

Does it really matter?

The OP has clearly become addicted to the kool aid...why does everyone have to dive into these conversations that are completely void of intelligence?

Yes, lots and lots and lots of presidents have violated the constitution.

There's your thread.

And *gasp* nobody is surprised.

I can't understand why people are shocked when Obama acts like every other politician on earth.

He is a politician. Not the second coming. Haha

Czars have been around for a long time


Look it up, I believe there is a thread here already about how many Czars there are.

it's the powers given to them that are unconstitutional when they do anything except report to the president.

er, they have no "powers", I mean, come on already. They are advisors to the president, that's it. They have no authority over any government personnel, agencies or any other "powers" at all.

The OP and many of the posters are showing nothing more than a willingness to be deceptive and misleading or even no problem telling an outright LIE, and for what.. Just to slam the President.

Get a grip, be objective and include other FACTS, like GWB having many more "Czars" than this President, then maybe you won't look like such a fool when you make your attacks.



[edit on 13-11-2009 by Rhetoric]

oops posted in wrong forum ><

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Snarf]

reply to post by sos37

And as I said before, another ATS poster challenged me to show 3 ways that Obama trampled the Constitution. As it was off-topic to the original post, ATS requires that a new post be created which is what I did. Sorry if you have a problem with my following the ATS rules, but you can go whine to a mod if you don't like it.

but is it really necessary to vehemently derail a thread in order to scream from the mountain tops that you started a new thread?

Send a u2u next time.

All you've done is proven everyone else right.

Bush and Obama are both politicians. What you chastise Obama for - Bush has done the same.

Maybe you should ask why you seem to be the only one who doesn't see it that way?

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Snarf]