Conservative
commentators, such as Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity, love to
bemoan the assault President Obama is waging on the United States
Constitution. This belief, popular with
fringe members of the Republican Party, has been given an image in paintings by
Jon McNaughton, a Utah based artist. One
of his works, entitled “One Nation Under Socialism” depicts President Obama
holding the Constitution as it is consumed by flames. Another painting, entitled “The Forgotten
Man” shows President Obama standing on the Constitution with President Madison,
known as the “Father of the Constitution,” begging him to get off the
document. Additionally, a depressed man
sits on a nearby bench being comforted by Republican and early presidents as
Democratic presidents applaud our current president for trampling the
Constitution.
The objective of these two paintings
is clear: enrage the conservative base against the Democratic Party and attempt
to bait Democrats into criticizing McNaughton which can then be spun into
further conservative propaganda. The
belief that President Obama has done and continues to do irreparable damage to
our founding document is woefully one-sided and simply incorrect. While it is true that some presidents have
violated the Constitution (Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the
Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court and the
internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, and George W. Bush’s signing
off on torture come to mind), the majority of so-called “constitutional
violations” by presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, are either simple
policy agendas which the opposition party opposes or a violation by the
Congress which the president is saddled with.
On December 4, 2011, the Daily
Caller, a conservative news website, published a list of constitutional
violations conducted by President Obama written by Ilya Shapiro. The first claim betrays the foolishness of
the author. “No list of President
Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete” without listing the
individual mandate, a provision in the Affordable Care Act which requires
citizens to possess health insurance or pay a fine. The foolishness of this claim comes in the
reasoning for the unconstitutionality of this policy when Shapiro states that
the mandate exceeds Congress’ authority.
Is the individual mandate a violation by the president or by Congress? To give Shaprio the benefit of the doubt, it
is possible that the “violation” belongs to them both due to the constitutional
power of the president to propose laws to Congress. The individual mandate, however, is not an
overstep by Congress due to the Article I, Section 8 authority to impose
taxes. The fine which accompanies the
lack of insurance is nothing more than a tax which one can exempt themselves from
by purchasing insurance. Not only is
this common sense, but it is also the position taken by the Supreme Court, as
seen in Chief Justice John Robert’s majority opinion in National Federation of
Independent Business v. Sebelius, the case which upheld the Affordable
Care Act.
The next claim is rather simple and
will not take much time to dismiss. The
“violation” is part of the Affordable Care Act (again, passed by Congress, thus
technically making it their violation) which requires states to increase
Medicaid budgets and reform the health care bureaucracy or risk losing federal
funding for Medicaid. Medicaid, which
states operate and pay for along with help from the federal government, is not
a constitutional program, but rather one created by President Lyndon Johnson’s
Great Society. Since it is not a constitutional
entitlement and since the federal government gets to create its own budget,
Congress is not compelled to pay for anything.
Thus the federal government can rightfully refuse to fund anything it
wants.
The third claim is similarly simple
and incorrect. It regards the
Independent Payment Advisory Board, which the conservative propaganda machine
dubbed the “Death Panel,” and the authority the board possesses. In what is a blatant lie, Shapiro claims that
any decision handed down by the board “automatically become[s] law” which, if
true, would in fact be an absurd constitutional violation. The reality is that the board can only make
recommendations on ways to shave health care costs, none of which are permitted
to involve rationing of care.
Shapiro’s
fourth “violation” is the auto bailout which saved Chrysler from
bankruptcy. The government can choose
how to spend its money, which includes granting loans to businesses, an act
which had a clear precedent before President Obama bailed out Detroit. There had been fifteen bailouts in the forty
years before Obama took office, all but one of which were approved by
Republican presidents. The fact that
Shapiro does not have a problem with those bailouts clearly illustrates that
this objection is nothing more than an attack on a Democratic president because
he is a Democrat.
Shapiro labels the Dodd-Frank
Banking Reform Act as Obama’s fifth constitutional violation. What should be noted as a trend is that
virtually all of these supposed violations Obama has committed were in fact
proposed and passed by Congress and simply signed by the president. Regardless of this, Dodd-Frank once again is
not a constitutional violation. Shapiro
bemoans the law for giving the Treasury Department a fair amount of authority
to regulate the banking industry, claiming that this is unconstitutional. It is well within Congress’ powers, however,
to delegate responsibility to the various departments of the government. Dodd-Frank is no more unconstitutional than a
law granting the Joint Chiefs authority over regulating the military.
The temporary ban on
deep-sea oil drilling in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon/British Petroleum
oil spill is pegged as the sixth violation.
The argument that this moratorium is unconstitutional is absurd. The federal government is the official owner
of the Gulf of Mexico areas where the oil rigs are positioned; the oil
companies simply lease the “land” from the government. Since the federal government is still
technically the owner, it can tell companies what to do and what not to do on
its own land.
Next, Shapiro puts forth
the claim that President Obama planned on forcing businesses with federal
contracts to disclose independent expenditures on federal elections. While Shapiro claims that this is an attack
on the First Amendment right to free speech, a right afforded to businesses
under the Citizens United decision by
the Supreme Court in 2010, it is not.
The plan, which was never even put into place, would simply have required
the businesses to disclose their expenditures; it would not have banned the
ability of businesses to contribute to political causes. But again, since the plan was never enacted
or even officially proposed, it can hardly be considered a constitutional
violation.
Shapiro also claims that
the attempt by the Internal Revenue Service to tax contributions to 501(c)(4)
organizations, nonprofit
advocacy groups which Stephen Colbert labeled “Spooky-PACs,” also constitutes a
constitutional violation by the Obama administration. While it is true that these organizations are
tax-exempt, this status is not a God-given right. The fact of the matter is that the IRS can
choose what to tax and what not to tax.
To remove an organization from tax-exempt status all it needs to do is
get support from Congress.
The
most ridiculous of all these claims is the last one I will address. Shapiro claims that the attempt by the Food
and Drug Administration to place graphic warnings on cigarette packages. He claims that this is a violation of the
First Amendment but fails to take that crucial step of explaining how the First
Amendment is violated. Assuming that he
refers to the freedom of speech protection, this claim fails the lightest of scrutiny. The right of the FDA to place warnings on
products has routinely been confirmed by the courts. If the FDA is allowed to place warnings, then
it has the authority to decide what shape, size, and form these warnings come
in.
As I previously mentioned, virtually
every “constitutional violation” levied against a president of either party is
in reality a violation conducted by Congress.
Even President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping, the Democratic Party’s
favorite barb against him, was “authorized” by Congress through the PATRIOT
Act. The claim by politicians that the
president is trampling the Constitution is often a smokescreen to distract the
population from the real culprits: Representatives
and Senators of both parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment