Obama's Constitutional Overreach: A Repeated Offense

Former US President Barack Obama has been accused of violating the US Constitution on numerous occasions during his two terms in office. While some critics claim that Obama's crimes and misdemeanors are too long to list, others have published detailed lists of his alleged constitutional violations, including delaying aspects of Obamacare, granting de facto green cards, and making outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Despite teaching constitutional law, Obama has been accused of not taking the restrictions imposed by the Constitution seriously and even believing that a president has the power to violate it.

Explore related products

Lawfare: Waging War through Law

$22.03 $28.99

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.”

$6.31

Human Rights at Risk: Global Governance, American Power, and the Future of Dignity

$37.95 $37.95

Moral Responsibility, Statecraft and Humanitarian Intervention (Global Politics and the Responsibility to Protect)

$220 $55.99

Constitutional Ambiguity and the Interpretation of Presidential Power (American Jewish Society (Dis))

$35.95 $35.95

Overreach: How China Derailed Its Peaceful Rise

$15.98 $34.99

Delay of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps

In 2013, the Obama administration delayed the implementation of out-of-pocket caps for Obamacare, which was listed as one of President Obama's constitutional violations. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This delay was intended to give insurers and employers time to comply with rapidly changing regulations. However, critics argued that changing the law requires actual legislation, not just administrative decisions.

The delay in implementing the out-of-pocket caps meant that individuals and families would continue to bear the burden of high healthcare costs. This delay also highlighted the challenges faced by the Obama administration in implementing its healthcare law, as it was met with strong opposition from Republicans and was unpopular with the public.

The out-of-pocket caps are meant to protect consumers from excessive healthcare expenses and ensure that health plans limit how much individuals and families have to spend on major medical coverage. While the Obama administration insisted that the law's implementation was on schedule, critics argued that the delay gave a break to big businesses while individuals and families remained stuck under the law's mandates.

The delay in implementing the out-of-pocket caps also impacted the costs of specialty drugs, which continued to increase. Consumers taking these medications needed to be vigilant in their insurance shopping, as the high out-of-pocket costs could be a significant financial burden. The average cap on yearly out-of-pocket costs for silver plans in 2017 was $6,449 for an individual and $12,952 for families, with copayments for specialty drugs averaging $261.55.

Overall, the delay in implementing the out-of-pocket caps for Obamacare was a controversial decision that highlighted the challenges of implementing complex healthcare reforms and the potential impact on consumers facing high healthcare costs.

Delay of Obamacare's employer mandate

In 2013, the Obama administration announced a delay in the implementation of Obamacare's employer mandate. This mandate required all firms with 50 or more employees to offer health coverage or pay fines. The delay meant that the mandate would not go into effect until 2015, instead of the originally planned date of January 1, 2014. This delay was met with criticism from Republicans in Congress, who argued that the administration was making changes without congressional approval.

The delay in the employer mandate was expected to have several implications. Firstly, it could drive up the cost of labor and increase unemployment. Secondly, it was predicted to lead to more people enrolling in Obamacare's subsidized insurance exchanges, as employers might take advantage of the delay to restructure their businesses and avoid providing health coverage. This could result in an expansion of the individual insurance market and a shrinkage of the employer-sponsored market. Additionally, the delay created legal uncertainty for employers who chose to take advantage of it.

The Obama administration provided a rationale for the delay, acknowledging that the mandate could incentivize firms to offer \"unaffordable\" coverage to their employees. By delaying the mandate, employers would have more time to restructure their businesses and comply with the requirement to offer affordable coverage. However, critics argued that changing the law required actual legislation, and the administration's decision to delay the mandate without congressional approval was seen as an overreach of its authority.

The delay in Obamacare's employer mandate was one of several delays and changes to the healthcare law during the Obama administration. Another notable delay was the postponement of out-of-pocket caps, which limited how much people had to spend on their own insurance. While these delays may have been intended to provide flexibility and ease the burden on employers, they also raised questions about the enforcement of the law and the role of the executive branch in making such changes without legislative approval.

Immigration reform

President Obama's immigration policies have been a topic of much debate and controversy. Obama's immigration plan, which aimed to spare roughly 4 million undocumented immigrants from mass deportations, was blocked by the Supreme Court in a 4-4 deadlock. This decision was criticised by Obama as heartbreaking and a setback for immigration reform. The plan was challenged by 26 states, arguing that Obama overreached his powers and violated the "Take Care Clause" of Article II of the Constitution. This clause states that the President must ensure that the laws be "faithfully executed", implying that he does not have the power to forbid their execution.

Obama's administration has been criticised for prioritising speed over fairness in the deportation system, with 75% of people removed without seeing a judge. This lack of judicial oversight and individualised due process has been seen as a violation of constitutional tradition and a departure from the immigration court hearings that were standard prior to 1996. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) has also noted that the deportation system has changed dramatically over the past two decades, with a shift from judicial to non-judicial removals.

Obama's immigration policies have been labelled as “unconstitutional”, with his “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans” (DAPA) order providing legal presence and associated benefits to illegal aliens with children born in the US. This order was seen as an attempt to change immigration law without congressional action, which Obama himself acknowledged was not within his authority until he took said action after the 2014 election.

Despite the criticism and legal challenges, Obama remained committed to immigration reform and insisted that lasting change would eventually occur. His plan aimed to provide legal recognition and protection from deportation for long-stay immigrants with strong ties to the US, such as US-born children or a lengthy presence in the country. Obama's mixed legacy in immigration enforcement is characterised by higher removal rates than previous administrations, but also a lower focus on increasing overall deportation numbers, instead prioritising recent border crossers and criminals.

Explore related products

Atheist Overreach: What Atheism Can't Deliver

$11.75 $23.99

Presidential Framing in the 21st Century News Media: The Politics of the Affordable Care Act

$64.99

Overreach: Leadership in the Obama Presidency

$23.95 $23.95

Chairman Biden and Dr. Fauci's Monster: Revised Edition

$9.99 $15.95

Lincoln, The Non-Christian President: Exposing The Myth

$5.95 $15.95

Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (American Empire Project)

$11.99 $14.95

Outlandish Supreme Court arguments

Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department's extreme positions nine times. These cases covered a wide range of topics, including criminal procedure, property rights, religious liberty, immigration, securities regulation, and tax law. The only common thread was the government's stance that federal power is essentially limitless.

One notable example was the case of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, often referred to as the "Dreamers." Despite previously claiming to lack the authority, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to these young immigrants, who had been brought into the country illegally as children. While the executive branch has discretion in enforcement priorities, critics argued that granting de facto green cards exceeded the president's constitutional duty to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution and faithfully execute the law.

Another instance of potential overreach by the Obama administration involved delays in implementing certain provisions of Obamacare. The Labor Department postponed the out-of-pocket spending caps, and the administration announced via blog post a delay in enforcing the employer mandate. While these delays may have been practical to allow insurers and employers time to adjust, critics argued that such changes required legislative action, not just executive decisions.

These actions and arguments before the Supreme Court contributed to perceptions that the Obama administration was willing to push the boundaries of its constitutional authority.

Discrimination against Christian refugees

While it is challenging to ascertain the exact number of times former US President Barack Obama went against the US Constitution, several sources allege that he violated it numerous times during his two terms in office. One source mentions that Obama himself believes that a president has the power to violate the Constitution.

One of the most prominent accusations of Obama violating the Constitution involves his signature healthcare reform law, commonly known as "Obamacare." On multiple occasions, the Obama administration delayed the implementation of certain provisions of the law, such as out-of-pocket caps and the employer mandate, without seeking the required legislative changes, which some argue was a violation of the Constitution.

Another instance of alleged constitutional violation is when Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, known as "Dreamers." Critics argue that this action exceeded the executive branch's discretion and amounted to granting de facto green cards, going beyond the president's duty to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution.

Additionally, there have been accusations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting conservative groups during Obama's presidency. In 2010, the IRS compiled a list of terms and subjects to identify organizations engaged in political activities, which included terms like "Tea Party," "Patriots," and "Israel." This targeting continued through 2013 and was seen as an abuse of power and a violation of constitutional rights.

Now, turning to the specific topic of "Discrimination against Christian refugees," there were indeed accusations of the Obama administration discriminating against Christian refugees from the Middle East, particularly those fleeing the conflict in Syria. US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized the Obama administration's refugee resettlement efforts, arguing that their inadequate vetting process and willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism prevented Christian refugees from escaping the genocide perpetrated by ISIS. He further asserted that the administration's policies seemed to favour Muslim refugees while actively keeping out Christian refugees.

Data cited by Senator Cruz and other sources seem to support this claim. For example, in 2014, out of 249 refugees admitted from Syria, 224 (89.9%) were Muslim, while only 13 (5.2%) were Christian. In 2015, out of 2,192 Syrian refugees, 2,149 (98%) were Muslim, and only 29 (1.3%) were Christian. The trend continued in 2016, with an even more significant disparity: out of 11,717 Syrian refugees, 11,624 (99.2%) were Muslim, and only 49 (0.41%) were Christian.

However, it is important to note that Obama himself rejected the idea of religious preference for refugees. He criticized suggestions that the US should admit Christian refugees from Syria but not Muslims, stating that there should not be a religious test for admitting refugees. Obama emphasized that Muslim Americans are as patriotic and integrated as any other members of American society.

In conclusion, while there were accusations of discrimination against Christian refugees during the Obama administration, particularly in comparison to the number of Muslim refugees admitted, Obama's stance was against the use of religious tests in refugee admissions. The disparities in the numbers of Christian and Muslim refugees accepted may be due to a variety of factors, including the overall demographics of refugees fleeing the region and the specific circumstances and vulnerabilities of each group within the context of the Syrian conflict.

Frequently asked questions