American President Barack Obama - Gone Rogue or Leading by Conviction?
72Going It Alone?
Did President Obama violate the U.S. Constitution when he made a recess appointment even though Congress had not recessed?
See results without votingShould the President be allowed to violate the U.S. Constitution, if the U.S. fails to act in good faith?
See results without votingIn late July 2011, with the debt ceiling crisis looming, American President Barack Obama and the Republican-led House of Representatives were at a standstill. House republicans, mostly led by newly elected Tea Party members, would not negotiate with the President. At that time, it was suggested by some, including yours truly, that the President should lead by executive order if in fact he felt unduly hindered by a gridlocked Congress. Now, I do not imagine for a second that the president read my little piddly article posted here on Hubpages. Yet, one thing seems certain. President Obama has stepped up his game and begun to act unilaterally on issues he seems to feel strongly about. The question is: has American president Barack Obama gone rogue or is he in fact leading by conviction? Moreover, is the first-term President acting outside the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution or merely exercising his powers as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief? Whatever the case, at the end of the third year of his first-term, Obama (for better or worse) stopped waiting for Congressional approval to move his agenda forward.
Executive Orders and Signing Statements
In order to move his agenda forward, American President Barack Obama turned to executive orders and signing statements. In late-October 2011, Obama acted unilaterally to extend financial relief to college students overburdened by student loans. The president could not get a measure through Congress to aid the overloaded students, so he turned to his power over the U.S. Treasury Department by lessening the amount each student would be forced to pay back and shortening the maximum years a former student would have to pay on the loans. The aim seems to be a genuine desire to give former students a break as well as extra discretionary funds to spend into the economy. Yet, the point is that the president circumvented the legislative process and acted unilaterally.
During his campaign in 2008, Barack Obama made a campaign promise that he would not turn to signing statements as did his predecessor. At the time, the Democratic candidate did not deny that such signing statements could be useful nor did he call them unconsitutional. Yet, he did promise not to use them. In 2011 alone he used such signing statements 20 times. Signing statements are notes attached to bills passed by Congress by which a president expresses misgivings concerning certain provisions in the bill. The sitting president may not want to veto the measure because the bill may contain important legislation that he wants to push forward. Yet, Bush and now Obama attached the signing statements to exepmt themselves of provisions in a bill if in their opinions the provisions would circumvent their constitutional powers. In the name of a "do nothing" Congress, President Obama abandoned his position against signing statements in order to exert his authority. The most blatant signing statement seemed to come in final week of 2011, when the President discounted provisions in a defense spending bill that would cut across his powers as Commander-in-Chief. This included a claim to unfettered power to detain American citizens for indefinite periods if deemed necessary.
Nonrecess Recess Appointments
January 4, 2012 President Obama appointed Richard Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, to be head of the newly-devised Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The American Chief Executive made the appointment even though the United States Senate had not officially recessed.
The U.S. Constitution grants the president of the United States the right to fill vacancies while the U.S. Congress is in recess (Article II, Section 2). However, the same constitution grants the U.S. Senate the right to approve all political appointments and Congress the right to determine when it will be in recess. In fact according to the U.S. Constitution, "Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days." (Article I, Section 5). At the end of 2011, the Republican-led House chose not to recess in order to block Obama's objective to make intersession appointments. Recent precedent, as interpretted by the Clinton Administration and confirmed by the Obama's justice department, established that the U.S. Senate must recess for a minimum of three days for the sitting president to make inter-session appointments. However, Obama ignored the opinion of his administration; not only making the appointment to Cordray, but three appointments to the National Labor Review Board.
Concerning this bold move by the President, an editorial in The Investor's Daily observed, "The U.S. Constitution established a strong presidency — so strong that even one of the most esteemed founding fathers, Patrick Henry, worried it would be kinglike. But this week saw a president exceed even those broad constitutional powers because doing so fits his election-year narrative of a "do-nothing Congress" so well." The same editorial wondered aloud whether the President's move was an impeachable offense.
However, there does seem to be precedent for President Obama's appointment. It appears that U.S. President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt made a similar move. The appointment by Obama seemed to occur at the moment when the current Congress gaveled out the 2011 year and gaveled in the 2012 year. Teddy Roosevelt also did the same to circumvent the process of approval hearings by the U.S. Senate.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (3)
CommentsLoading...
Man, I love the way you lay things out without putting a personal spin on them. It's physically impossible for me to do it. I've tried. I'm not real sure that Obama's executive orders are hugh in of themselves, but when you add it to a lot of other things, it becomes a problem. At least that's how I see it. Again, I'm going to send a friend by who I depend on at the Housefire Project. You do a fine job writting these things my friend.
jim
Great Hub ECoggins. The President has bent the rules a little but the Senate has far exceeded its blocking methods. They refuse to confirm anyone because they disagree with this post. That, to me, is unconscionable and wrong. Bravo, President Obama for stepping up and sidestepping this do-nothing Congress.
Completely agree. The time for waiting for the team to work with him has unfortunately passed.
Yes, it's about time! I don't know what is going on, but these R's do not work for the people of America. Enough playing their game! It's just too bad we have to keep paying them, while they serve who knows who or what.
bearclawmedia, thank you for your kind comments and encouragement. The President new found boldness makes for interesting constitutional food for thought.
TheManWithNoPants, Thank you for your encouragement. Even if I do not always agree with the president, I do believe that I should respect the office of the presidency. Still, as I think you allude to, it is possible President Obama is being too bold. At the very least, he might be opening himself up to an impeachment process at the beginning of his second term which could derail his agenda for the second four years. This is especially possible if the Republicans win a majority in the Senate which at this time seems more than plausible.
HSchneider, Thank you again for your kind words. Even if I don't necesarily agree with all his policies, I have to give the President credit for standing up to his convictions. Do you think President Obama was a little naive during his campaign to make promises without fully understanding what presidents endure from opposition in Congress?
THealton, Hi! Thank you for your concise comments on Hubpages (and Facebook). Hope all is well with Jim and your family.
Thank you lovemychris for sharing your opinion. I appreciate you stopping by and sharing your comment.
One of the reasons we have a do nothing congress is because they are spending 30 to 70 percent of their time raising big money to fund their reelection campaigns. This distracts them from the issues that the people feel are important, while they focus on the issues that are important to big money interests. The people vote them in office, based on their pledges to the people. However, once they get in office, there is this big disconnect from what they said they were going to do and what they actually end up doing. It's prevalent on both sides of the aisle.
If you picture an equilateral triangle with congress at one corner, lobbyist at the other corner and corporations and big money interest at the other corner and connect them with arrows of influence both clockwise and counter-clockwise, you will see what I call a triangle of influence...and nowhere in this picture are the people. That's why Obama has to take the bull-by-the-horns!
Thanks for the hub it was great!
His "boldness" is nullifying Congress, the American people and the Constitution. His appointments are big decisions that are better left to the confirmation process.
peoplepower73, thank you for your contribution to this discussion. The re-election issue is pertinent to this discussion, isn't it? I agree that it is a big problem. Yet, in our current situation, is it not the Tea Party activists who are blocking the president's agenda? And are they not doing so because of their own convictions about too much social spending and government regulation that in their minds restricts private job growth? Were they not elected by their constituencies to do this very thing? If both are standing on principles of ideology and conviction, should the president exercise the right to go around them because he cannot persuade them to compromise with his point of view?
breakfastpop, Thank you for sharing your ideas. I appreciate your feedback on the subject matter. I do wonder if the president's moves set a dangerous precedent.
ecoggins - Jeez, ya almost made this too easy. Being the ideologue that he is, it's a twisted combination of having gone rogue where the power has gone to his head and the convictions of his socialist ideas. Not a very attractive combo when you throw his narcissistic personality into the mix.
I penned a companion piece today if you want to compare notes.
The Frog
The Frog Prince - I knew you would show up sooner or later. I read your piece and commented on it. The most important point you imply is that the process matters. If in fact the President can further his agenda through the Constitutionally mandated process then so be it. He cannot lump all decisions under the "threat of national security" label and legitimize those decisions as under his powers as "Commander-in-Chief."
ecoggins - Obama cares nothing about the processes outlined in the US Constitution. He just wants to find a way to circumvent it when he can't legally exercise his agenda. If his agenda was that popular he wouldn't be having the problems he is facing. The man is becoming more dangerous by the minute, as each day passes he seems to become more arrogant.
The Frog
The Frog Prince, you may be right. Since I do not know the president personally and am not with him on a day to day basis it is hard for me to say whether he is acting out of arrogance or frustration. Sometimes there is a fine line between the two. Certainly he followed the Constitutionally mandated process when he had a Democratic majority in the House. Also, since I do not know the president personally it is difficult for me to conclude whether his policies are a matter of personal ambition or compassion for the ordinary citizen.
Take healthcare for example. Certainly healthcare costs are out of control in this country. Certainly adequate healthcare is out of the reach of many households with incomes under $50,000 per year. The question is whether healthcare is a fundamental right for all American citizens. No doubt the Obama Healthcare plan does not deliver what it says it does. The mandated costs only add an extra burden on overloaded household budgets. But I cannot say he did not act out of compassion.
Or what about the appointment of Cordray? The financial industry ripped off millions of American people through bogus loans. Moreover, financial rustling by the bigger players in the financial markets left their own pockets fat and their victims lean to bone. Do not the ordinary citizen deserve protection from Wall Street excesses? This is not to say that we should have a czar who operates entirely outside the purview of Congressional oversight. Maybe a commission of five is better than the dictatorial nature of one. Still, without knowing him personally I cannot say that the president's action are more arrogance than genuine care for the ordinary citizen.
Yet, even if the president is operating out of frustration and concern, that does not give him the freedom to act unilaterally. He took office with a complete understanding of the gridlock of partisan politics in Washington. Just because he does not seem to be able to untangle the mess woven over the last 40 years does not mean he can circumvent the Constitution. In that he seems to be defying himself.
I am following this debate with great interest. But I have a question. Do you have anyone better than Obama? His opponents are men who inspire no confidence and then you can't blame Obama for all the ills left behind by the previous 10 presidents.
MG Singh, Thank you for your candid question. You seem to make a valid point. At this point, it does seem as if his opponents lack the confidence of the American people. However, we cannot say for certain if they would succeed or fail if elected. Obama is young, good looking, and when given a well-written speech can be fairly persuasive; even charismatic. However, he has not shown that he can move any members of Congress on to his agenda (even the members of his own party). Members of his own party might vote with him on occasion, but then go on national TV and say America has a crisis of leadership. Mit Romney has experience in the business and financial sector that Obama did not have before he was elected. Rick Santorum sat on the Senate Arm Services Committee and wrote and passed major legislation which Obama did not do before winning the presidency. So it is hard to say whether they would do any better or worse until given the chance. Yet, the point of this discussion is not whether Obama is qualified to be president, but whether he overstepped his bounds. The true leader of the United States of America is the U.S. Constitution itself. It is the basis for all the United States purports to be. Once the U.S. Constitution is relegated to an ordinary document to be ignored as seen fit, the United States of America stops being the United States of America.
ecoggins - Let me add that Obama had no record, or not much of one, when he got elected. He voted "Present" 90% of the time as an Illinois legislator. He never wrote a major piece of legislation as the junior Senator from Illinois. In fact, most of his time spent as a US Senator was spent campaigning for the presidency. He is the perfect Manchurian candidate if you examine it.
The Frog
Dems best remember their allowance of these unlawful tactics when the next Rep is elected. The Right will use the same tactics & claim Obama set the standard. Don't cry when that happens.
The actions of the president are very troubling to me, I have a hard time believing he has any real regard for the Constitution. He'll push as far as he believes he can politically get away with.
From what I understand, Teddy Roosevelt was the first president, to seriously depart from the principles in the Constitution. To use his actions as a precedent is pretty weak too start with. If the Constitution were to be enforced according to its plain reading, you'd have to impeach most of the government!
bearclawmedia Level 1 Commenter 4 months ago
Great reporting and good writing, thanks for presenting an argument.