Malcolm Rivera
President Barack Obama has been accused of violating the US Constitution in several instances during his two terms in office. From delaying aspects of Obamacare to granting amnesty to illegal aliens, critics have charged that Obama exceeded his constitutional executive authority, ignored the legislative branch, and positioned himself as both lawmaker and enforcer. Obama's administration has also been accused of political profiling by the IRS, and subverting creditor rights in the bailout of Chrysler. With his We Can't Wait initiative, Obama expressed his frustration with the separation of powers and his desire to fundamentally transform the country without congressional acquiescence. These actions have sparked debates about the limits of presidential power and the role of government in society.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Delay of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps | The Obama administration delayed the implementation of out-of-pocket caps in the healthcare law, requiring legislation to make changes |
| Delay of Obamacare's employer mandate | The administration delayed the requirement for employers with at least 50 people to provide complying insurance or pay a fine, citing statutory authority |
| IRS political profiling | The IRS created a "be on the lookout" list to identify organizations with specific political leanings, potentially violating free speech |
| Separation of powers | The administration's "We Can't Wait" initiative and economic plans suggested a disregard for the separation of powers and a desire to act without congressional approval |
| Abuse of power | The Obama administration was accused of abusing power, exceeding constitutional executive authority, and ignoring the legislative branch |
| Amnesty for illegal aliens | President Obama granted amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, which some argue exceeded his constitutional authority |
| Executive orders | The issuance of executive orders creating new laws was seen as a violation of the separation of powers and an overreach of executive authority |
| First Amendment | The administration was accused of violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment by granting religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Delay of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps
In 2013, the Obama administration delayed the implementation of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps for one year, until 2015. This was announced by the Labor Department in February and meant that the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance was postponed.
The delay was due to the need for insurers and employers to have more time to comply with the rapidly changing regulations. Health plan sponsors and carriers stated that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate an individual's out-of-pocket costs. However, critics argued that changing the law requires actual legislation, and the delay highlighted the law's overall unworkability.
The postponement of the out-of-pocket caps was one of several delays to Obamacare's provisions, including Medicare cuts, the employer mandate, and the enforcement of eligibility requirements for health insurance subsidies. The delay in out-of-pocket caps specifically impacted the limit on out-of-pocket spending for major medical coverage, which was initially set to take effect in 2014.
The delay had significant implications for consumers, as it affected their ability to manage healthcare costs. It also impacted colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their students. The postponement of the caps also contributed to the rise in premiums, as a result of banning lifetime limits and mandating lower deductibles.
While the delay provided temporary relief to businesses struggling with the healthcare law, it drew criticism from those who argued that individuals and families remained unfairly burdened by its mandates. The delay also fuelled Republican efforts to discredit and defund the law, with the GOP-controlled House voting to defund or repeal elements of Obamacare on multiple occasions.
Founding Fathers' Vision: Equality for All Men
You may want to see also
Delay of Obamacare's employer mandate
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes several new regulations on employers, including a mandate that requires them to provide all full-time employees with a minimum level of healthcare insurance or pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This mandate, often referred to as "Obamacare", was set to go into effect in 2014. However, on July 2, 2013, the Obama administration announced a one-year delay in enforcing the employer mandate, citing the need for "transition relief" to allow employers more time to comply with the new regulations.
The delay in enforcing the employer mandate had significant implications for the healthcare marketplace and state Medicaid programs. With the delay, exchanges and state Medicaid programs had to rely on personal attestations from applicants, increasing the risk of fraud and abuse. Additionally, the delay removed a financial disincentive for employers considering dropping healthcare coverage for their employees. The employer mandate penalty, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000 per full-time employee, was designed to discourage employers from dropping coverage and to add a cost for those not providing healthcare benefits.
The Obama administration's decision to delay the employer mandate was met with criticism, with some arguing that it violated the Constitution. The administration did cite statutory authority for the delay, but the cited provisions were related to the delay of certain reporting requirements rather than the mandate itself. This action by the Obama administration was seen by some as an overstep of executive power and a disregard for the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
While the delay provided temporary relief to employers, it also created uncertainty and potential challenges for the implementation of the ACA. The complex nature of healthcare systems and the need for data exchange between different entities further complicated the process. Ultimately, the delay in enforcing the employer mandate under "Obamacare" highlighted the challenges of implementing sweeping healthcare reforms and the potential consequences of executive actions that may be perceived as violating the Constitution.
The Constitution's Due Process: A Fundamental Right
You may want to see also
IRS political profiling
In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under the Obama administration, revealed that it had selected certain political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to widespread criticism of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe ordered by the United States Attorney General Eric Holder.
The controversy centred around the IRS's use of specific criteria to flag organisations for further scrutiny. In 2010, the IRS compiled a "be on the lookout" ("BOLO") list that included terms such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", "Israel", "government spending", "debt", and "taxes". This list was used to identify groups for closer examination, and it disproportionately targeted conservative organisations. However, an exhaustive report 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, suggesting that the issue was not solely an Obama-era partisan scandal.
The IRS's actions raised concerns about political profiling and the potential infringement of constitutional rights. Nonprofit organisations dedicated to social welfare are not required to apply for IRS certification to operate under Section 501(c)(4) tax exemption rules. However, being certified by the IRS can make it easier to attract donations and avoid further scrutiny. During the Obama administration, there was a notable increase in applications for 501(c)(4) certification, which coincided with budget and personnel cuts within the IRS.
While the IRS's actions may have been driven by practical considerations, they nonetheless sparked intense debate and contributed to the perception that the Obama administration was frustrated with the separation of powers and congressional acquiescence. This incident highlights the challenges of governing within the constraints of the Constitution and the importance of maintaining a non-partisan approach in the implementation of policies.
The Supreme Court's Constitutional Connection
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$152.1
Abuse of power
The Obama administration has been accused of abuse of power by granting a religious exemption to the abortifacient and contraceptive mandate, which some claim violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. However, this assertion was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987, which stated that the federal government is free to grant religious exceptions, and doing so does not violate the establishment clause.
Further accusations of abuse of power include the amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and the issuance of executive orders that create new laws. Critics argue that President Obama exceeded his constitutional executive authority, ignored the legislative branch, and positioned himself as both lawmaker and enforcer.
Additionally, the Obama administration has been criticized for delaying certain provisions of the Obamacare legislation, such as out-of-pocket caps and the employer mandate, without the required legislative changes.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican and then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged that congressional legislation is rendered meaningless if the president can claim that his constitutional authority supersedes statutes. This criticism extends to the Bush Administration's abuse of power through the use of signing statements and the expanded exercise of wartime powers, which some argue sets a problematic precedent.
Internal Improvements: Constitutional or Federal Overreach?
You may want to see also
Separation of powers
The US Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government and the people, in which the American people are bound to a set of rules to protect their freedom from abusive leaders and governments. Some critics have argued that President Obama violated the Constitution by blatantly disregarding the separation of powers.
The separation of powers is a principle in which the three branches of the US government (judicial, executive, and legislative) are kept separate to prevent any one person or group from having too much power. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. The President is the head of the executive branch and is responsible for carrying out the laws passed by the legislative branch.
Critics have argued that President Obama exceeded his constitutional executive authority and ignored the legislative branch by positioning himself as both lawmaker and enforcer. For example, in 2013, the Obama administration delayed the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (also known as "Obamacare"), including the out-of-pocket caps and the employer mandate. These delays were made without the necessary legislation, which some argue was a violation of the separation of powers.
Additionally, the Obama administration's "We Can't Wait" initiative was seen by some as a way to circumvent Congress and make changes without their approval. Senior aide Dan Pfeiffer's statement that "when Congress won't act, this president will" was cited as evidence of the administration's willingness to act without congressional approval.
Furthermore, President Obama's amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and his use of executive orders to create new laws were also seen by some as a violation of the separation of powers. Critics argued that these actions exceeded his constitutional executive authority and threatened Americans' liberties.
The Founding Fathers' Lobbying Legacy: Constitutional?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Some sources claim that Obama violated the Constitution by delaying Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps and employer mandate, granting a religious exemption to the contraceptive mandate, and requiring Americans to purchase health insurance.
The delay of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps may have been sensible to give insurers and employers time to comply with changing regulations. However, changing the law requires legislation, and the Obama administration did not follow this process.
The individual mandate exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. If allowed to stand, Congress could impose any economic mandate as part of a national regulatory scheme.
Some critics argue that Obama violated the separation of powers by taking executive action without congressional acquiescence. Obama himself stated that he would not "allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way."
