Simone Lawson
Barack Obama's presidency has been marred by several controversies, with critics accusing him of ignoring the US Constitution and violating its principles. One of the most notable instances is the delay of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps and employer mandate, which required legislative changes. Obama's administration has also been criticised for its handling of immigration and deportation, with allegations of sacrificing due process and individual fairness to achieve record removal numbers. Additionally, Obama's statements and policy initiatives, such as We Can't Wait, have indicated a frustration with the separation of powers and a willingness to act unilaterally, even if it means ignoring the Constitution. While some of these actions may be politically motivated, they have sparked concerns about executive overreach and the preservation of constitutional values.
| 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 50+ employees to provide complying insurance or pay a fine |
| IRS subsidies for health insurance plans | Allowing subsidies for plans from a "State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange" |
| Political profiling by the IRS | Creating a "be on the lookout" list to identify organizations with political activities, including those with certain keywords and subjects |
| Outlandish Supreme Court arguments | The Supreme Court rejected the Justice Department's extreme positions 9 times between Jan 2012 and Jun 2013 |
| Unilateral action on immigration | Expanding deferred action for young illegal immigrants, discontinuing the Secure Communities program, and more |
| Ignoring the Constitution's balance of power | Taking executive actions without working with Congress, which shuts down pathways to negotiation and compromise |
| Pledging to act after the midterm elections | Suggesting he would take unlawful unilateral action after the elections to avoid impacting voters' ballots |
| Creating a pseudo-border emergency | Stoking a phony crisis at the US-Mexican border to spur Hispanics to vote in an off-year election |
| Interpreting "State" differently | The IRS interpreted "State" to mean "federal government" when extending tax credits, which goes against normal rules of statutory interpretation |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
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. This decision was met with criticism and sparked concerns about potential financial burdens on patients, particularly those with chronic diseases and disabilities. The delay provided insurers and employers additional time to comply with the changing regulations. However, critics argued that altering the law necessitates formal legislation.
The delay in imposing out-of-pocket caps on Obamacare was regarded as a setback in the Obama administration's efforts to implement the healthcare law. This delay, along with the postponement of the employer mandate, fuelled attempts by Republicans to discredit and defund the legislation. The administration defended its decision by emphasising the need to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, who had expressed technical challenges in aggregating out-of-pocket costs.
The out-of-pocket caps were intended to protect consumers from excessive financial burdens associated with their healthcare expenses. By capping these costs, individuals and families would have additional financial protection, ensuring that healthcare is more accessible and affordable. However, the delay in implementing these caps left consumers vulnerable to potentially higher out-of-pocket expenses.
The Obama administration's decision to delay the out-of-pocket caps for Obamacare was listed as one of the president's top constitutional violations in 2013. This delay, along with other actions taken by the administration, sparked debates about the role of government and the separation of powers. Critics argued that President Obama had violated the strictures of the Constitution, particularly in his efforts to push through his policy agenda without congressional acquiescence.
The delay in implementing the out-of-pocket caps for Obamacare highlighted the challenges faced by the Obama administration in rolling out complex healthcare reforms. While the administration insisted that the law's implementation was on schedule, the delay in this critical consumer protection aspect drew criticism from consumer groups and patient advocacy organisations. They argued that the delay could disproportionately impact individuals with high drug bills or those managing chronic diseases and disabilities.
Federalism: Distinctive Features and Constitutional Principles
You may want to see also
Delaying Obamacare's employer mandate
One of the Obama administration's alleged violations of the Constitution in 2013 was the delay of Obamacare's employer mandate. The mandate required employers of at least 50 people to provide complying insurance or pay a fine. The administration announced via blog post on July 3, 2013, that the employer mandate would be delayed for a year, meaning that employers would not pay any penalty before 2015. This delay was justified by the need for employers to have more time to comply with the rapidly changing regulations. However, critics argue that changing the law requires actual legislation, not just a blog post.
The Obamacare employer mandate has been a controversial aspect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Some argue that the mandate is poorly designed and creates negative incentives for employers, such as an incentive to cut employee hours. There are also concerns that the mandate does not add much to the overall efficiency of health reform and that it is challenging to predict which firms it will impact. These issues have led to calls for the mandate to be fixed or delayed further.
In response to these concerns, the Obama administration delayed the employer mandate for a year, recognizing that employers needed more time to adjust to the new requirements. This delay was intended to prevent potential disruptions in the workforce and give employers more flexibility in providing healthcare coverage for their employees.
While some supported the delay, others criticized it as a violation of the Constitution. The argument is that the executive branch, led by President Obama, overstepped its authority by unilaterally changing the law without going through the legislative process. This action was seen as a disregard for the separation of powers and the checks and balances system intended to prevent any one branch of government from having too much power.
The delay of Obamacare's employer mandate is just one example of the complex and often contentious interactions between healthcare policy and constitutional interpretations during the Obama administration. It highlights the challenges of implementing sweeping healthcare reforms while navigating the legal and political landscape of the United States.
The Constitution: A Tool for Denying People's Rights
You may want to see also
Political profiling by the IRS
In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under the Obama administration, revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to widespread condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including an FBI criminal probe.
The controversy began in 2010, when the IRS, after witnessing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, compiled a "be on the lookout" ("BOLO") list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included terms such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", and "Israel"; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare.
The targeting continued through May 2013, with conservative groups claiming they were specifically targeted by the IRS. However, an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny. It was also revealed that during this period, budget cuts and personnel cuts reduced the IRS's ability to adequately perform its core duties.
The use of the IRS for political profiling is not a new phenomenon. There have been numerous allegations of misuse of the IRS for political purposes dating back to the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration in the 1930s. Roosevelt had the finances of his political opponent, Huey Long, investigated by the IRS in 1934 to discredit him and damage his support base. Other notable examples include the "Ideological Organizations Project" during the Kennedy administration and the coordination between the IRS and the FBI during the 1950s and 1960s to target groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Communist Party.
Texas Constitution: 1867 vs 1869 - What Changed?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Unilateral action on immigration
On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions to address the nation's broken immigration system. The actions included:
- Increasing resources for law enforcement personnel to reduce illegal border crossings and speed up the return of those who cross over
- Facilitating the process for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to the economy
- Addressing the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country, holding them accountable, and providing a pathway to citizenship
- Requiring certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to stay in the US without facing deportation
- Expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to people of any current age who entered the US before the age of 16 and lived there continuously since January 1, 2010, extending the period of DACA and work authorization from two to three years
- Allowing parents of US citizens and lawful permanent residents to request deferred action and employment authorization for three years, provided they meet certain requirements
While President Obama stated that these actions were within his legal authority as President, some critics argued that they constituted unilateral actions that ignored the will of Americans, violated the Constitution, allowed criminals to evade the law, made communities less safe, punished legal immigrants, and encouraged illegal immigration.
The House Judiciary Committee Republicans published a document titled "Oversight of the Obama Administration's Immigration Policies," alleging that the President's unilateral actions on immigration had negative consequences. They claimed that the policies allowed criminal aliens to stay in the US, endangering American communities, and that lax policies may have allowed alien sex offenders to avoid deportation.
It is worth noting that independent experts cited by the White House stated that providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would help grow the economy and reduce deficits. They also emphasized that similar actions had been taken by previous Democratic and Republican presidents.
Boston Massacre: A Prelude to the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Ignoring the Supreme Court
While it is difficult to find specific instances of former US President Barack Obama ignoring the Supreme Court, there are some suggestions that he may have done so on certain occasions during his tenure.
One of Obama's chief aides, Dan Pfeiffer, stated that "when Congress won't act, this president will", indicating a willingness to bypass Congress, and potentially other governing bodies, in order to push through his agenda. This statement was made in reference to the Obama administration's "We Can't Wait" initiative, which suggested a potential disregard for the separation of powers and a willingness to act unilaterally.
During his time in office, Obama was accused of making outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department's extreme positions nine times. This suggests that the Obama administration may have attempted to push through policies or arguments that were not aligned with the interpretations of the Constitution held by the Supreme Court.
Additionally, there was an instance during the Obama administration where a judge held the Interior Department in contempt for imposing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2011. While this does not directly involve the Supreme Court, it indicates a willingness within the administration to disregard certain judicial rulings.
Furthermore, Obama's amnesty order has been mentioned as a potential example of him ignoring the Supreme Court, although the specifics of this are unclear.
It is important to note that the US Constitution is a complex document, and the interpretation of its principles can vary. While some may argue that Obama ignored the Supreme Court or acted unconstitutionally, others may disagree with these interpretations.
Who Really Controls the Federal Executive Branch?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Obama was accused of ignoring the Constitution on multiple occasions, with some sources listing "top constitutional violations". However, the number of times is hard to pinpoint and depends on interpretation.
Obama's administration was criticized for its handling of immigration and deportation, with some arguing that it prioritized speed over fairness, sacrificing due process. There were also delays in implementing certain parts of Obamacare without the required legislation.
In 2014, Obama was quoted as saying that he would "`I'll ignore the Constitution and break the law" after the midterm elections. However, this statement was part of a Washington Times opinion piece and should be interpreted within its political context.
Obama's administration was accused of political profiling by the IRS, and making outlandish Supreme Court arguments that were unanimously rejected. Some critics also believed he overstepped the separation of powers and took unilateral executive actions.
