In 2010 we published a book arguing that Barack Obama was creating an imperial presidency. The past few months prove that prediction was correct.
First President Obama’s EPA claimed power to create cap-and-trade through new regulations, rather than Congress passing a law. Then Obama’s FCC claimed the power to regulate the Internet, despite a federal appeals court ruling that only Congress could authorize such control through legislation. More recently, Obama’s Department of HHS issued regulations requiring Catholic and Evangelical organizations to violate their religious conscience regarding birth control and abortion-related services.
Then we got a double-whammy in just one week. First Obama flaunts the fact that he refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, despite the fact that every administration is duty-bound to defend federal statutes, and there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth if a conservative Republican president failed to defend a liberal law in court. Afterward, Obama announces that, having failed to get the DREAM Act through Congress, he will simply accomplish its provisions by ordering the government to stop enforcing the law by not deporting certain illegal aliens, and then break the law by taking the affirmative step of actually issuing those people work visas.
These issues do not concern the environment, the Internet, religion, marriage, and immigration, respectively. Instead it’s about the rule of law and limited government under our Constitution.
The Constitution vests all lawmaking power in Congress. It vests all executive power to enforce and administer those laws in the president. And it vests all judicial power—including the power to determine whether lesser laws violate the Supreme Law (the Constitution)—in the courts.
In the aforementioned actions, President Obama has arrogated to himself all of those powers. If Congress doesn’t make the laws he wants, he just declares them under the name of “regulations.” If he doesn’t like a law on the books, he acts like the judiciary by proclaiming the law unconstitutional, and refuses to enforce it. He effectively makes or abolishes laws at will.