Obama takes aim at U.S. Constitution
Ever since Barack Obama said he intended to “transform” America, many have speculated about what sort of transformation he had in mind. It is now pretty clear that he idolizes the European social democracies for their “advanced” commitment to providing cradle-to-grave security. But the price for this is the destruction of our Constitution.
Evidence in support of this takes two forms, general and specific. As to the first, Obama revealed to a Chicago radio station back when he was teaching constitutional law there that he was disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court had not interpreted the Constitution more broadly so that economic and social justice could be done to aggrieved (and guilty) parties. The Justices, according to Obama, were too bound by the constitutional text to make awards based on need rather than merit.
After her husband was nominated for President in 2008, Michelle Obama was widely quoted as saying that, for the first time in her life, she was proud of her country. Doubtless she had in mind the long struggle for equal rights for members of racial minority groups, but she seemed to overlook the progress toward that goal that began with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and especially the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Why the continuing animus against our country despite its great strides toward justice? As her husband has made clear, it is not enough to secure equal rights; it is necessary that the very meaning of equality be redefined in order to accommodate the wider goal of remaking society.
The Obamas are right about the Constitution being an obstacle to societal transformation. For not only does it stipulate that government must protect private property and freedom of commerce; it also provides safeguards in the structure of the government to restrain the abuse of power.
Since he has become president, Obama has shown that the various checks and balances which Americans hold dear are only so many annoying obstacles to “transformation.” He has been enabled by Democrats in Congress and in the bureaucracy.
The health care bill that Congress passed in 2010 ran roughshod, or threatened to, over at least three constitutional barriers. When the House of Representatives and the Senate passed different versions of the bill, this inconvenience was to be overcome by “deeming” an identical House bill passed to conform to the Senate bill. Only a last-minute series of corrupt legislative bargains with that rare breed known as pro-life Democrats avoided that questionable step.
But the bill itself runs headlong into the Constitution’s requirement that Congress may pass bills that regulate actual interstate commerce, not a decision to refrain from engaging in it, by forcing everyone to buy health insurance. That is precisely the issue that is now being contested at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has scheduled an almost unprecedented five hours for oral arguments.
By its sweeping expansion of the meaning of interstate commerce, Obama Care effectively usurps the role of the states and assaults their residual sovereignty. The delicate balance between federal powers for national objects such as defense, foreign affairs, and foreign and interstate commerce, and state powers for safety, health, education and welfare, has been called into question. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, the next Congress and President should repeal this monstrosity and allow free trade in health insurance and medical care as the Constitution authorizes.
More recently, President Obama has made illegal appointments to the Consumer Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board on the specious grounds that the Senate was not in session during the Christmas holidays. He knew that Republicans would block these appointments, so he made them anyway by flouting the Constitution’s requirement of senatorial consent.
Previously, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency defied a Supreme Court ruling that held that regulation of carbon dioxide (“greenhouse gases”) was not authorized by the Environmental Protection Act of 1972. So Obama is simultaneously defying a court decision and an existing federal statute.
Obama has repeatedly said that if Congress “fails to act,” he has no choice but to impose binding executive orders. He is acting the part of a dictator by issuing decrees rather than enforcing laws.
Obama knows that the Constitution blocks his social democratic agenda, so he treats it like a mere piece of paper instead of the supreme law of the land. His defeat for re-election this year is an urgent priority.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.
