21 times Obama violated the Constitution“Obama claims to have taught constitutional law, but he doesn’t seem to be familiar with the Constitution’s words. Lost in his shuffle are ‘all legislative powers’ are vested in Congress, and the president ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'”
Issues on which Obama has been accused of being in conflict with the Constitution:
- A federal judge said his funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional.
- A court was told Obama’s gun-control plans “exceed the powers of the president.”
- National Review columnist Ilya Shapiro once pointed out Obama’s 10 top constitutional violations of 2015, including financial bailouts.
- His belief that “gay” trumps religion in the U.S. Constitution.
- His ordering of religious believers to provide abortion pills in violation of their faith.
- The Iran deal.
- Obama’s amnesty plan.
- His agenda to enact same-sex “marriage.”
- His recess appointments.
- His refusal to deport illegal aliens.
- His attempt to coerce Catholics to support birth control
- His mandate over private health care records.
- His orders that schools and public buildings open women’s restrooms to men who say they are women.
- His insistence that states cannot deprive abortionists of public funding.
- That the feds can orders states not to enforce immigration laws.
- That the federal government can simply change definitions of words in federal law, even though it may cost Americans.
- That he can decide which people will be allowed to move into certain neighborhoods.
- That he can decide who faces prosecution.
- That he can change the Constitution’s language, from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”
- That he can dictate speech codes
- That the IRS can selectively target Christians and conservatives because they disagree with Obama’s policies.
He pointed out that although Obama has been described as a constitutional “law scholar” and taught constitutional law in Chicago, Obama doesn’t take seriously the restrictions the Constitution imposes.
Farah quoted from Obama’s own book: “What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation, a ‘deliberative democracy’ in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent. Because power in our government is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds; it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible.”
Such “lack of clarity,” Farah wrote, suggests that Obama believes the Constitution is “a guidepost for testing our ideas.”
“In other words, he intends to unshackle the government from constitutional restraints. Of course, when you unshackle government power from constitutional restraints, those shackles, as the framers understood, tend to wind up restraining liberty”