The lawless presidency: There Obama goes again
Can the Obama administration become any more lawless? Consider it a rhetorical question.
On Sunday, we editorialized of the growing impeachable nature of Barack Obama's presidency. From immigration to ObamaCare (to countless things in between), Mr. Obama repeatedly acts in contravention of the Constitution. That is, he does not have unilateral power to strike or alter the implementation of laws without a congressional warrant.
But on Monday, Obama yet again thumbed his nose at the rule of law, doubling down on a previous constitutional slight. At about the same time Obama quipped that the good thing about being president is that “I can do whatever I want” (during a visit to Thomas Jefferson's Monticello with French President Francois Hollande), his White House announced the second delay — this time for two years — in implementation of an ObamaCare provision requiring businesses of 50 or more to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a penalty.
The administration is learning, albeit late, that such a provision is a business and jobs killer that could wreck the U.S. economy. But instead of admitting its mistake and working with Congress to fix the mess, the ever vainglorious Obama chooses to attempt to cover his tracks by breaking the law. Again.
And not only are the president's actions illegal, they smack of politics — a clear effort to take the heat off Democrats facing angry voters in this fall's midterm elections.
The bill of particulars against this president grows longer by the day.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- Rejecting Common Core: Flawed school standards
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Thursday Wrap