Isabella Carter
Former US President Barack Obama has been accused of violating the US Constitution on numerous occasions during his two terms in office. One of the most prominent accusations relates to his administration's handling of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Obama was criticised for delaying the implementation of certain provisions of the law, such as out-of-pocket caps and the employer mandate, without seeking the necessary legislative changes. In addition, Obama's use of executive action to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants has been characterised by some as an overreach of presidential power and a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. Other alleged breaches of the Constitution include outlandish Supreme Court arguments and the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Delay of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps | Delaying the implementation of the healthcare law that limits how much people spend on their insurance |
| Delay of Obamacare's employer mandate | Delaying the requirement for employers with at least 50 employees to provide complying insurance or pay a fine |
| IRS "be on the lookout" list | Targeting organizations with words like "Tea Party", "Patriots", and "Israel" in their names, and those involved in political activities |
| Outlandish Supreme Court arguments | The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department's extreme positions 9 times between Jan 2012 and June 2013 |
| Abuse of executive action | Obama threatened to implement a mass amnesty from immigration laws by executive fiat, going against the separation of powers |
| Unconstitutional appointments | Obama made unconstitutional appointments during a Senate recess, which was struck down unanimously by the Supreme Court |
| Unconstitutional immigration order | Obama's "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans" (DAPA) order gave illegal aliens a "legal presence", entitling them to various social benefits |
Explore related products
![Barack Obamas speech on 5 April 2009 in Prague in relation to international law: “[r]ules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61kuclTaAUL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
Delaying Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps
In 2013, the Obama administration delayed the implementation of out-of-pocket caps for Obamacare, which was originally set to take effect in 2014. This decision was made to address the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, who stated that their computer systems were not equipped to aggregate an individual's out-of-pocket costs across different areas of coverage, such as medical care, drugs, and children's dental services. This complexity required insurers and employers more time to comply with the changing regulations.
The delay, however, sparked criticism and complaints from various consumer groups and patient advocacy organizations. They argued that the delay could potentially harm individuals with high drug bills or those suffering from chronic diseases and disabilities, as it would allow out-of-pocket costs to exceed the legal limit. The consumer groups suggested that technology existed to combine the separate administrative functions, eliminating the need for an extension. They also proposed dividing the total out-of-pocket cost among different administrators to prevent consumers from facing higher limits than permitted by law.
The Obama administration's decision to delay the out-of-pocket caps for Obamacare was not an isolated incident. It was part of a broader challenge the administration faced in implementing the healthcare law. The delay in the employer mandate, for instance, was highlighted by Republicans as evidence of the law's overall unworkability. Additionally, the law faced opposition from the public, with polls indicating its unpopularity and misunderstanding.
The delay in the out-of-pocket caps for Obamacare had significant implications for individuals, especially those with high medical expenses. The average cap on yearly out-of-pocket costs for 2017 silver plans was $6,449 for an individual and $12,952 for families. However, it's important to note that not all medications prescribed to individuals were covered by the plans, and expenses for drugs not included in the health plan's formulary were paid out-of-pocket and did not count towards the annual cap. As a result, individuals taking specialty drugs were advised to consider the potential for high out-of-pocket costs when selecting their insurance plans.
The Constitution: Lost in Translation?
You may want to see also
Delaying Obamacare's employer mandate
In 2013, President Obama delayed the implementation of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare. This mandate required employers with at least 50 employees to provide complying insurance or pay a fine. While the Obama administration did cite statutory authority for the delay, it was still considered a constitutional violation by some. This is because the cited provisions only allowed for the delay of certain reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
The delay was announced via a blog post on the eve of the July 4 holiday, and the mandate was delayed for a year, meaning employers would not face penalties until 2015. This was the second delay to Obamacare, the first being a delay to out-of-pocket caps, which limit how much people have to spend on their own insurance.
Some commentators have argued that the employer mandate is poorly designed and creates bad incentives, such as an incentive to cut hours for employees. It has also been argued that the mandate does not add much to the overall efficiency of health reform and is difficult to enforce. However, delaying the mandate could result in millions fewer Americans being covered, and the cost of covering each of those people would almost double.
This delay was part of a pattern of constitutional violations by the Obama administration, with some arguing that Obama was frustrated by the separation of powers and wanted to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence. The administration's “We Can't Wait” initiative and Obama's statements about not letting "gridlock, inaction, or willful indifference get in our way" support this interpretation.
Enumerated Powers: Congress' Triple Threat to Get Things Done
You may want to see also
IRS be on the lookout list
In 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) compiled a "be on the lookout" (or "BOLO") list to identify organizations engaged in political activities after witnessing an increase in the number of applications for tax-exempt status. The list included terms such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," and "Israel"; topics such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. This targeting continued through May 2013.
The inclusion of these organizations on the BOLO list has been cited as one of President Obama's top constitutional violations of 2013. Critics argue that the IRS's targeting of specific groups and ideologies infringed on the First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly.
While the IRS has a responsibility to monitor and regulate tax-exempt organizations to ensure they comply with the law, the specific criteria and implementation of the BOLO list raised concerns about potential bias and the suppression of certain political viewpoints.
This incident highlights the delicate balance between enforcing tax laws and respecting the constitutional rights of citizens, particularly when it comes to political expression and assembly. It underscores the importance of clear guidelines and oversight in the IRS's monitoring practices to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of power.
Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in the tax-exempt status determination process to maintain public trust and confidence in the IRS's ability to administer tax laws impartially.
The Supremacy Clause: Understanding the US Constitution's Power Dynamic
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Supreme Court arguments
While Barack Obama is considered to have brought the Constitution to the forefront of public discourse, critics have argued that he violated the strictures of the founding document of the US. One of the most prominent criticisms is that Obama abused his executive power, threatening the separation of powers established in the Constitution.
One example of this is Obama's use of executive action to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants through the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) order. This order gave illegal immigrants who had given birth to children in the US "legal presence", entitling them to various social benefits. Twenty-six states sued the federal government, arguing that the orders violated the Administrative Procedure Act as they were issued without public notice and comment and were in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Supreme Court asked the parties to address whether Obama's order violated the "Take Care Clause" of Article II of the Constitution, which charges the President with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed.
Another example of Obama's alleged abuse of executive power is his use of recess appointments when the Senate was still in session. No other President in history had tried to make such appointments, and the Supreme Court unanimously struck them down as unconstitutional.
In addition to these examples, critics have pointed to other instances where the Supreme Court rejected the Justice Department's extreme positions, as well as delays in implementing aspects of Obamacare, as further evidence of Obama's disregard for the Constitution. However, it is important to note that the interpretation of the Constitution and the extent of executive power are often subject to debate and interpretation.
RV Living: A Home for Tax Benefits?
You may want to see also
Abuse of executive action
In his first term, Obama launched the "We Can't Wait" initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that "when Congress won't act, this president will". Obama himself also stated that he would "not allow gridlock, inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way". This attitude was reflected in Obama's actions, such as delaying parts of Obamacare, including out-of-pocket caps and the employer mandate, without the required legislation.
In addition, Obama was criticized for his administration's failure to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in some states and for rewriting Obamacare deadlines. Obama's actions were seen as a threat to the separation of powers and a disregard for the constitutional principles of checks and balances.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa expressed concern about Obama's threat to take unilateral action, stating that it posed a danger to the separation of powers and a serious blow to the system of checks and balances established by the Framers of the Constitution. Obama's promise to act without the support of Congress or the American people was viewed as an abuse of executive power and a serious blow to the constitutional order.
Obama's administration was also accused of making misleading statements to Congress about Operation Fast and Furious, undermining their accountability and ignoring the Constitution's protections of individual rights, including religious freedom.
The American Constitution: Democratic or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
There is no definitive answer to this question, but Obama has been accused of numerous constitutional violations during his presidency.
Obama has been accused of violating the Constitution through his handling of Obamacare, mass amnesty, and executive actions.
Obama's administration delayed the implementation of certain provisions of Obamacare, such as out-of-pocket caps and the employer mandate, without proper legislation.
Obama threatened to implement mass amnesty for immigrants through executive action, bypassing Congress and the will of the American people, which some argued violated the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
Obama's administration has been accused of making outlandish Supreme Court arguments, claiming unlimited federal power, and targeting certain political organizations through the IRS.
