Will: Obama’s worse than Nixon on the Constitution

posted at 12:41 pm on August 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Richard Nixon once argued to David Frost in a now-famous post-resignation interview that anything a President does is by definition legal:

George Will writes today that the spirit of Nixon has returned with a vengeance in President Barack Obama, who has suddenly discovered that statutes are inferior to presidential whim.  Rather than wait for Congress to address the need for delays in ObamaCare mandates, or even work with efforts to provide them, the President stiffed Congress by declaring the legislative branch unnecessary for the statutory process:

Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.” …

Twenty-three days before his news conference, the House voted 264 to 161, with 35 Democrats in the majority, for the rule of law — for, that is, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act. It would have done lawfully what Obama did by ukase. He threatened to vetothis use of legislation to alter a law. The White House called it “unnecessary,” presumably because he has an uncircumscribed “executive authority” to alter laws.

At least Nixon took care to limit his claim to national security, or nearly so, Will writes.  Obama seems to have adopted in on the grandest possible scale, especially for protecting his political interests:

Nixon’s claim, although constitutionally grotesque, was less so than the claim implicit in Obama’s actions regarding the ACA. Nixon’s claim was confined to matters of national security or (he said to Frost) “a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude.” Obama’s audacity is more spacious; it encompasses a right to disregard any portion of any law pertaining to any subject at any time when the political “environment” is difficult.

Obama should be embarrassed that, by ignoring the legal requirement concerning the employer mandate, he has validated critics who say the ACA cannot be implemented as written. What does not embarrass him is his complicity in effectively rewriting the ACA for the financial advantage of self-dealing members of Congress and their staffs.

Will refers to the ObamaCare waiver for Capitol Hill, which gives Congress an out from the explicit language of the ACA statute that forces it to be treated the same as any other employer.  Even Congress had more shame than to write a waiver for that requirement.  Instead, Obama unilaterally ordered that Congress receive subsidies to counter the effect of ObamaCare on staffing, while everyone else has to deal with that same problem without an Oval Office bailout.

In my column today for The Fiscal Times, I again urge Republicans to take a look at the recent Aiken County ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to push back against neo-Nixonianism:

The court wrote in its decision on In re Aiken County et al:

“It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered, if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case…. Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute.” That is the basis for the rule of law as well as the separation of powers under the Constitution – that the law applies to everyone equally, from the President to each citizen, including executive-branch agencies like the NRC and the Department of Energy.” …

This ruling demolishes the strategy for the White House to delay the political impact of employer mandates and out-of-pocket caps on insurers until after the 2014 midterm elections. Those mandates were written into statute by Congress and signed by President Obama himself. Thanks to the manner in which the White House won its Supreme Court battle over Obamacare, these mandates are not prosecutions but taxes, enforced by the IRS. The law requires employers to report on health-insurance status each month, and it requires insurers to cover out-of-pocket expenses after a certain level.

The Obama administration cannot simply declare those mandates suspended on their own, as they have attempted to do over the past few weeks, no more than they can stall on Yucca Mountain indefinitely. The Department of Health and Human Services can only ignore these statutes, according to Aiken County, if the President finds them to be unconstitutional. That would be a neat trick, considering that the Obama administration fought for years to establish the constitutionality of the mandates. Otherwise, as the appeals court states, the executive branch has to work with the legislative branch to amend statutes with which they prefer not to comply, or follow the law.

Why is the Obama administration adopting neo-Nixonianism to avoid the consequences of its own law?  Michael Ramirez offers an explanation at Investors Business Daily, inspired by recent events designed to squelch satirical dissent:

ramirez-bull

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’s a fanastic piece by Will. Now over 5000 comments, which tells you it hit the bulls-eye (pun intended.)

rockmom on August 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obama_2001_scrap_the_constitut.html

Nixon at least believed in the Constitution. Dear Liar does not.

rbj on August 15, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Ramirez is a national treasure.

Nixon was a Dick.

obama has none.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM

1) He’s bulletproof because of his “historic” presidency. He knows it.
 
2) Shame has no role in our nation’s moral center. See impeached multimillionaire President “2013 Father of the Year” Clinton. Any movement bringing Obama in check would be welcomed and used as a weapon against those interested in legality.

rogerb on August 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Will: Obama’s worse than Nixon on the Constitution everything

ToddPA on August 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM

High Crimes and Misdemeanors, if not outright treason.

Flange on August 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Obama should be embarrassed that, by ignoring the legal requirement concerning the employer mandate,

Embarrassed? He should be impeached, and his corrupt ass thrown out of office.

The amnesty-by-executive-order, which Obama himself acknowledged he does not have the constitutional authority for, the blatant ignoring of federal law that prohibits illegal aliens from receiving food stamps (the Obama administration not only knowingly provides billions of dollars worth of food stamps every year to illegal aliens, they also spend millions of our dollars advertising this fact in Spanish-language ads in Mexico), and on and on.

Either the constitution and the laws of this country mean something, or they don’t. Congress needs to get up off their asses and put a stop to Obama’s blatant lawlessness, or this country is done.

AZCoyote on August 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Reporters Laugh When Obama’s Spokesman Denies Another ‘End Run’ Around Congress
(CNSNews.com) – The White House press corps laughed when President Obama’s spokesman on Wednesday said the president, in directing the Federal Communications Commission to raise cell phone taxes to pay for broadband Internet access in schools, would not be going around Congress.

Colbyjack on August 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Of course he is…and, unlike with Nixon and the GOP, the Democrats will do NOTHING…because TFBP!

Resist We Much on August 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

All the legal, constitutional and parliamentary maneuvering is enough to confuse Albert Einstein, but here is the bottom line: Congress and staff managed to get themselves exempted from the single, most-punishing aspect of Obamacare.

Yes, you should be sharpening the tines of your pitchforks.

Back when the president and his henchmen rammed Obamacare through Congress, Republicans inserted a key provision requiring that whatever Frankenstein healthcare boondoggle got yoked upon the hardworking American people would also be yoked around the necks of every congressman and staffer on Capitol Hill. Mr. Obama, being the slick fellow that he is, made sure it did not apply to him or anybody working for him in the White House.

The noble idea was that if they were seizing control of our titanic — yet still largely functioning — health care system and started ramming into every passing iceberg, then, by God, they were not going to get to be first in line for the life boats. No, they were going to go down with the ship.

If Obamacare was good enough for the American people, it should be good enough for Congress.

Must read article. The freedom of the land depends on how this is ignored, or not.

It’s no longer the Rs versus the Ds, its all of them against you, the taxpayers.

If you allow this to stand then you deserve the tyrants, in full.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

liblikeaslave, defend your tyrant, you incredible bigoted fool.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Will: Obama’s worse than Nixon on the Constitution everything

ToddPA on August 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Not quite everything…yet.

Learning the ABCs: Have You Ever Wondered Who Gave You A Federal Agency?

Of course, he just took the framework and put it on A-Rod-level ‘roids.

Resist We Much on August 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM

obama was supposedly a constitutional law lecturer…we is learning nothin’, nothin’, nothin’…

In the meanwhile MO is up in arms over a clown with an obama-mask.

Communism laughts its collective head off.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Without control of the Senate impeachment is useless.

SunSword on August 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM

liblikeaslave, defend your tyrant, you incredible bigoted fool.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

‘The President is black so it’s all good.’

- Liveenslavedthendie

Resist We Much on August 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM

The President is black so it’s all good.’

- Liveenslavedthendie

“He is the first black-Caucasian president” — NYT

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

She/He/It is going with the drop trolling method today it would appear.

Bmore on August 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM

WOW – OBOZO has even lost the faux-conservative Will !!!!

TeaPartyNation on August 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Without control of the Senate impeachment is useless.

SunSword on August 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM

With Republicans, even control of the Senate is useless.

On PERJURY, only 45 Senators voted to convict Clinton.

On obstruction of justice, only 50 Senators did.

Republicans had 55 Senators.

Resist We Much on August 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM

America has recently passed the 40th Anniversary of Watergate, so it’s fitting to note the eerie Nixon-Obama Parallels:

Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster…Sounds like OBOZO repeated Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. The similarities between the two don’t stop there….

NIXON: Invoked Executive Privilege to cover up his involvement in a scheme to subvert an election
OBOZO: Invoked Executive Privilege to cover up his involvement in a scheme to subvert the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which resulted in the deaths of two US border Patrol agents and thousands of mexican citizens.

NIXON: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson and Mitchell
OBOZO: Jarrett, Emanuel, Axelrod, van Jones, LYING Rice, Ayers, Dorn, Wright, Holder, Rezko, Jennings…and the WORST OF THE WORST: Shrillary Rotten -”What difference does it make” that my gross incompetence helped lead to the deaths of four Americans – Clinton

NIXON: Appointed a political hack Attorney General who politicized ALL DOJ actions and became the SECOND WORST AG IN AMERICAN HISTORY
OBOZO: Appointed a racist political hack Attorney General who racially focused and politicized ALL DOJ actions and became the WORST AG IN AMERICAN HISTORY

NIXON: A lawyer who disrespected the law
OBOZO: A lawyer who disrespects the law, the US Constitution, American values, Catholics, free enterprise, Jews, job creators, American Exceptionalism, Israel, American citizens….

NIXON: Kissed butt of America’s enemy, the Chinese Communists
OBOZO: Kisses butt of each and every enemy of America

NIXON: Created an ENEMIES LIST of people who didn’t support him and used the LIST to intimidate, harass and slur innocent people
OBOZO: Created an ENEMIES LIST of people who do not support him and uses the LIST to intimidate, harass and slur innocent people and have various agencies in the OBOZO regime go after these individual with the intent of destroying their business and/or livelihood.

NIXON: Used the IRS to harass and intimidate his “emenies”
OBOZO: ditto – but added his DOJ, EPA, NLRB, DHS, HHS, the LABOR-UNION Dept and other agencies to do the same.

NIXON: Engaged in a massive cover-up of his crimes in Watergate
OBOZO: Engaged in a massive cover-up of his negligence and crimes in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious gun-running operation – BOTH of which lead to DEATHS of American citizens.

NIXON: A chronic LIAR
OBOZO: A chronic, habitual, shameless, pathological, congenital, serial LIAR – to the billionth power

NIXON: Resigned is disgrace; pardoned by his dumb-@$$, incompetent, bumbling former VP
OBOZO: Hopefully resigns in disgrace or is thrown out of office through impeachment and takes his dumb-@$$, incompetent, bumbling VP with him.

The bottom line: Tricky-Dick was an AMATEUR compared to the vile corruption and criminal actions of OBOZO and his regime.

TeaPartyNation on August 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Without control of the Senate impeachment is useless.

Without 2/3rds of the Senate….it’s useless. I suspect any Democrat Senator will just vote ‘Not Guilty’ out of party loyalty since none really have demonstrated a willingness to counter the party line.

Without the compliance and open assistance by the ‘Ministry of Truth’ (lamestream media) and the growing numbers of low-information (ie ignorant) voters – Barack Obama would be on the ropes.

But mix his hubris / narcissism with the assistance of the lamestream media and lockstep party loyalty – and you have a regime that will continue to ignore and flout not only the law, but the Constitution.

Athos on August 15, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Well, he did promise to fundamentally transform America.

Chris of Rights on August 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Obama’s worse than Nixon on the Constitution

The People’s Exhibit #3,234,874 that the GOP is dead.

faraway on August 15, 2013 at 1:07 PM

The House GOP (in order to have standing) should be in court on a daily basis filing suits against the Obama administration for all of the laws they have broken, bent, or ignored.

Tater Salad on August 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM

And it only took Will 4 1/2 years to understand what the rubes understood 5 years ago.

Too little, too late!!

katy on August 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM

About dang time

Lib posters at wapo must be freaking out. heh

cmsinaz on August 15, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Sadly, since congressional Republicans generally and leadership in particular are a frightened, tone-deaf & mostly unprincipled bunch of spineless wonders I seriously doubt pushback of any significance will result from this or any of the President’s many extralegal outrages.

Sacramento on August 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Well, duh.

But he’s a black commie. He’ll never be held accountable.

The Rogue Tomato on August 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Colbyjack
They are laughing but not reporting on it

Arrggh

cmsinaz on August 15, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Either the constitution and the laws of this country mean something, or they don’t nothing.

AZCoyote on August 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Shorter version.

GWB on August 15, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Nixon was a Dick.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM

And he had that down Pat.

The Rogue Tomato on August 15, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Will: Obama’s worse than NixonStalin on the Constitution everything

ToddPA on August 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Dang the comments on the WaPo article are coming in so fast it’s scrolling like credits at the end of a movie.

You know he hit a nerve.

bigmacdaddy on August 15, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive, and the rodeo clown is on the run!

Marco on August 15, 2013 at 1:23 PM

George Will writes today that the spirit of Nixon has returned with a vengeance in President Barack Obama
=======================================

No Sh*t,and meanwhile,the MSM looks the other way!!

canopfor on August 15, 2013 at 1:24 PM

AZCoyote on August 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

I’m waiting for some lawyer to use the argument in a civil or criminal case that his client has the right to disregard a portion of any law because it will harm the client.Obama has set the precedence and lawyers can run with it.

docflash on August 15, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Now over 5000 comments, which tells you it hit the bulls-eye (pun intended.)

rockmom on August 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Ready? Here we go!

I don’t always agree with President Obama, and I have been disappointed in him, but for you to compare him to Richard Nixon is reprehensible. Accuse him of being a bit arrogant–okay. But he isn’t a crook, and he hasn’t bugged the offices of the opposition, despite the fact that the opposition’s only agenda is to block him no matter what it costs the American people.

At last we find something George has in common with Barack: non-brevity. He takes 2-3 lines to get across what the rest of us single-syllable folks could say in one.

As for who has mangled the constitution the most, how about your hero Ronald, who found a way to raise non-appropriated funds to sponsor wars in Central America without reference to Congress.

“It Burns!”

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Will: Obama’s worse than Nixon on the Constitution

Wow, brilliant.

PappyD61 on August 15, 2013 at 1:28 PM

We should never have allowed any agency to write legislation though regulation. We certainly don’t do it with the Police. I can’t imagine the horror if we allowed state troopers to write the laws that they enforce. By the same, we should not allow agencies, DEA, EPA, DEH, HUD or anything else write regulations that they enforce. All / Any law should be written by the legislature, if they think that is too much work, then they need to slow the heck down. I would also love a mandatory sunset clause on every law, that will keep them busy re-passing some much old stuff they won’t have time to screw us with as much new stuff.

rgranger on August 15, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Dang the comments on the WaPo article are coming in so fast it’s scrolling like credits at the end of a movie.

You know he hit a nerve.

bigmacdaddy on August 15, 2013 at 1:20 PM

That’s easy to remedy, just Pause the comments. There is a way to do that on the right top of the comments section. Click on “Comments Live” and it will pause them until you want to start them coming in again.

BTW, while there, be sure to check out the WaPo “poll” on whether or not Hillary will run in 2016. 84% say yes.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:30 PM

obama is very successful in these endeavors:

1. He furthers his own pockets. The book “How I fooled a world, and got away with it” will pay 1 billion, soon.

2. He destroys the law and the land.

3. He furthers the Muslim Brotherhood, apace.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Re: Constitution and infringements
 
They will (and did) support Obama
 
1) because they wanted what you had, and were jealous of you working, saving, sticking it out at your job, paying your dues with your employer, and making appropriate financial decisions for your family re:healthcare, and, more recently,
 
2) because they want gay marriage.
 
They’ll tolerate the exponential increase in domestic spying, the lobbyists, the spending, F&F, Benghazi, IRS, etc. for it. They’ll even tell you so:
 

Say, now that you mention it, you supported these guys too, didn’t you?
 
How about libfreeordie? Was it because you were uninformed or because there was a (D) next to his name on the ballot?
 
Those are your only two choices. Although I suppose it could be both.
 
rogerb on June 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM

 
You’re not that dumb rogerb. There was/is no evidence that Mitt Romney would have taken a different approach on national security issues, surveillance or civil liberties… I voted for Obama because of the few (and I mean very very few) domestic issues he’s better than Romney on.
 
libfreeordie on June 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

rogerb on August 15, 2013 at 1:35 PM

The bottom line: Tricky-Dick was an AMATEUR compared to the vile corruption and criminal actions of OBOZO and his regime.

TeaPartyNation on August 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Actually, it’s 41 years (the break-ins were on May 28th, and June 17th of 1972). I can remember seeing the story about the break-in on the network news on June 18th. The Congressional hearings started in 1973. I threw a newspaper route back then, and the Watergate hearings were front page news throughout that summer.

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM

No Sh*t,and meanwhile,the MSM looks the other way!!

No, they aren’t looking the other way. They are active participants in protecting and enabling Obama’s actions. They share the same ideological viewpoints. They believe the country is broken and needs to be fundamentally transformed. They are card-carrying progressives – and are loyal to the party and the state.

It’s not just the MSM that is protecting and enabling the progressive destruction of America…

…academia has been corrupted and now active in enabling the progressive destruction…

…the judiciary too…

…formerly conservative religious organizations have been either corrupted or marginalized…

…there is no functional opposition political leadership, far too many believe that progressivism-lite is the answer (ie – go along to get along) as well as fear of the power of the corrupt press…

…too many ignorant / low-information voters who want ‘free’ stuff from the government and prefer to be accountable to the government as opposed to accountable to themselves (The American people have learned to be bribed by politicians using the dollars of the American people).

For those not in these groups – you’re a target of those groups. Just look at the vehemence directed towards the Tea Party…

Athos on August 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM

liblikeaslave, defend your tyrant, you incredible bigoted fool.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

LFOD is a race baiter. This has nothing to do with that.

itsspideyman on August 15, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Now over 5000 comments, which tells you it hit the bulls-eye (pun intended.)

rockmom on August 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Ready? Here we go!

I don’t always agree with President Obama, and I have been disappointed in him, but for you to compare him to Richard Nixon is reprehensible. Accuse him of being a bit arrogant–okay. But he isn’t a crook, and he hasn’t bugged the offices of the opposition, despite the fact that the opposition’s only agenda is to block him no matter what it costs the American people.

At last we find something George has in common with Barack: non-brevity. He takes 2-3 lines to get across what the rest of us single-syllable folks could say in one.

As for who has mangled the constitution the most, how about your hero Ronald, who found a way to raise non-appropriated funds to sponsor wars in Central America without reference to Congress.

“It Burns!”

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM

This may be the funniest posts I’ve ever seen on the Post. They are doing everything EXCEPT direct themselves to the core of Will’s comments.

itsspideyman on August 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/14/black-citizens-group-files-articles-impeachment-against-obama

this was supposed to be in my former comment but it did not show up for some reason

katee bayer on August 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM

From WaPo comments:

‘If what Obama has done only helps people, and hurts no one, how did it violate the constitution?’

Please point out the ‘Helps People, Screw Congress’ Clause of the Constitution.

LMFAO!

Resist We Much on August 15, 2013 at 1:45 PM

That’s easy to remedy, just Pause the comments. There is a way to do that on the right top of the comments section. Click on “Comments Live” and it will pause them until you want to start them coming in again.

BTW, while there, be sure to check out the WaPo “poll” on whether or not Hillary will run in 2016. 84% say yes.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Not that there’s much worth reading…most of it’s “but Obama’s still dreamy.”

And the other 16%? Do they think (and when I say “think” I mean “pray”) Obama’s going to have a third term?

bigmacdaddy on August 15, 2013 at 1:46 PM

‘If what Obama has done only helps people, and hurts no one, how did it violate the constitution?’

If the country was in the middle of a war and the steel industry, which plays a critical role in manufacturing war materiel, was crippled by a strike, could Obama seize the steelplants and put striking workers back on the job…’Because National Security!’?

No…as President Truman learned the hard way in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), which the Supreme Court handed down during the Korean War.

Resist We Much on August 15, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Wake up America…or is it too late already?

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Please point out the ‘Helps People, Screw Congress’ Clause of the Constitution.

When we stopped teaching ‘Civics’ and ‘History’ (not the gender / race based ‘history’ that is the rave, or the crap from Howard Zin, but real history – warts and all), the majority of people stopped learning about the Constitution and core American values.

When that happens, they start saying idiotic things like the quote from the WaPoo comments section…

Or as a progressive would say – it’s working as intended.

Athos on August 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Here is what you learn in your first Contracts course in law school

Contracts (and laws) can only be enforced by police power. So without any effective enforcement capability, the president can pretty much do whatever he wants. The recourse is impeachment, in other words there is no police power that can force a president to uphold the Constitution…it is only political power…and let’s face it, DC is so corrupted by power and money that Dems and Repubs have very little incentive to risk their money and power in a fight for principle.

Just the way it is man…

georgealbert on August 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM

This may be the funniest posts I’ve ever seen on the Post. They are doing everything EXCEPT direct themselves to the core of Will’s comments.

itsspideyman on August 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Not that there’s much worth reading…most of it’s “but Obama’s still dreamy.”

And the other 16%? Do they think (and when I say “think” I mean “pray”) Obama’s going to have a third term?

bigmacdaddy on August 15, 2013 at 1:46 PM

My scientific wild-ass guess is that at lest 75% of those 5,000+ WaPo comments come from Democrats who were not even alive during Nixon’s Presidency. Which means of course they are totally unqualified to comment on him.

What’s so funny about them calling Nixon a “crook” is that many years later they all said their Rock Star President Bill Clinton was Above the Law for committing a felony crime while in office.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:55 PM

It truly breaks my heart to see this country change for the worse….forever. In spite of all the “personal optimism” expressed from time to time, from Rush to Hannity to Levin, surely they must admit privately that all is lost. But for the sake of keeping their programs and businesses alive, they must state that all is not lost, they must declare that the USA can come back.

Rush, Rand and others are absolutely correct in stating that Obama is not following the Constitution, but so what? Many Republicans and conservatives are making that same argument, but so what? If Obama can ignore the Constitution, if he can write legislation or delay legislation lawfully passed by Congress without approval of the Congress, then where are we as a country?

Is our Constitution so constrained that not even a single congressman can impeach Obama if that one person can prove beyond doubt that Obama is breaking the law of the land? If the law of the land is so clearly breached, and yet it gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, how could Obama ever be removed from office over such dire offenses?

Obama is no slouch when it comes to understanding the power structure in the U.S. Government. Obama understood from day one of his reign that he can break any law he chooses because he can. He can take any issue that is a hot button of his base and party, and pass any solution to that issue he wants by a decree of executive order. No one can stop him. There may be enough Republicans in the House to bring impeachment proceedings against him, but there aren’t enough Democrats in the Senate to agree on conviction. He knows that and will use any means necessary to complete his agenda before his second term is up. As Rubio has stated, Obama will declare amnesty for the illegals and he will grant citizenship before his second term is completed. You can take that to the bank and there is nothing, nothing that can stop Obama from granting citizenship to the illegals.

metroryder on August 15, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Please follow this - it could defund obama’care’ and more importantly, it could save the land from tyranny.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Stay focused on this like lasers.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Sophie, work this over.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Barack Obama, who has suddenly discovered that statutes are inferior to presidential whim.

It is only “sudden” to those not paying attention at all.

besser tot als rot on August 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM

My scientific wild-ass guess is that at lest 75% of those 5,000+ WaPo comments come from Democrats who were not even alive during Nixon’s Presidency. Which means of course they are totally unqualified to comment on him.

What’s so funny about them calling Nixon a “crook” is that many years later they all said their Rock Star President Bill Clinton was Above the Law for committing a felony crime while in office.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:55 PM

They know Nixon was a crook because that’s what their English teacher told them.

C’mon…that wasn’t a felony felony.

bigmacdaddy on August 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM

“Will: Obama’s worse than Nixon on the Constitution”
Who let Will in on the secret?

freedomfirst on August 15, 2013 at 2:19 PM

To reiterate, the President and federal agencies may not
ignore statutory mandates or prohibitions merely because of policy disagreement with Congress. Aiken et al v. Nevada @p9

This ruling completely undercuts Obama’s claim to the authority to simply ignore the plain language of the Obamacare law. And that abuse of power is only the last in a long string of lawlessness by Obama.

But Republican leadership has no interest in standing on principle and attacking Obama’s repeated usurpations of power and defiance of Congressional authority and the laws of the land. Instead, they encourage him to engage in further lawlessness by failing to enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate in the same lawless way he refuses to enforce the employer mandate, because it serves their political agendas.

It isn’t hard to understand. The law is the law. If you don’t like it, amend it, repeal it, fail to fund it, but you can’t just ignore your duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land. Because when you do you get what we have gotten, the President abrogating the law to the benefit of his political agendas and his political supporters. This very behavior is a common characteristic of tyrannical regimes throughout history. It simply cannot be permitted if we are to remain “a nation of laws.”

It is all Ruling Class perversity. We need a purge. A massive purge.

novaculus on August 15, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Is there any other way really to describe this prevailing absurdity by lunatics lauding a political candidate for President of the United States, who (in reality) is actually more deserving of being indicted on numerous counts of aggravated negligent homicide?!

Nixon’s next pupil

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 2:34 PM

‘This was the law. How can they change the law?’

- Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), an author of the health law and the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, according to The New York Times.

Resist We Much on August 15, 2013 at 2:43 PM

The REB treats our Constitution like an a la carte menu.

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2013 at 3:00 PM

What’s so funny about them calling Nixon a “crook” is that many years later they all said their Rock Star President Bill Clinton was Above the Law for committing a felony crime while in office.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 1:55 PM

They know Nixon was a crook because that’s what their English teacher told them.

C’mon…that wasn’t a felony felony.

bigmacdaddy on August 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Whenever I get into a discussion with a typical Low-IQ Democrat and Clinton’s felony perjury comes up, the predictable response is that he was Above the Law because he was “only” lying under oath about sex.

When I gently remind them that just a few years before Moanica, Clinton sat by and did nothing when his Department of Justice successfully prosecuted a female Federal employee for lying under oath about sex, they either turn silent on me or go Alinsky and start to call me nasty names.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Will’s editorial is excellent. Sadly, I made the mistake of glancing at the comments. They were what you would expect from WaPo readers. I did, however, notice a subtle shift. Rather than the usual, “Yeah? Well, Bush …” it seems the standard low-information response is, “Yeah? Well, Fox News …”. Sigh, I will now return to my Texas Secession vigil.

wkh on August 15, 2013 at 3:33 PM

A guy knocks over a two-bit hotel room, and he never lives it down. —Regular Right Guy

Mornin Mojo on August 15, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Scott Johnson @ Power Line:

George Will served his apprenticeship in journalism as the Washington editor of National Review from 1972-1978. For his first two years on the job he drove NR readers nuts with his biweekly columns mercilessly exposing the crimes and deceit of the friends of Richard Nixon in the Watergate escapades. In his history of National Review, former NR senior editor Jeffrey Hart describes Will in mid-1973: “National Review‘s new Washington columnist George Will began to perfect the style of political comment that combined relentless logic with understated scorn for felons and fools and would make him famous.”

Professor Hart mentions Will’s treatment of Spiro Agnew in particular: “His handling of the upcoming Spiro Agnew scandal would alienate some at National Review as too severe a way to treat a friend, but it was also just, and it impressed a national audience with his integrity.”

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM

This ruling demolishes the strategy for the White House to delay the political impact of employer mandates and out-of-pocket caps on insurers until after the 2014 midterm elections.

LOL, you write that as though you think – after all of this writing, in this very article – that Obama will abide by this ruling, much less the law itself.

He will not. Don’t we know this by now?

Good grief. Wake the f*ck up already. Stop writing sentences like “The Obama administration cannot simply declare those mandates suspended on their own, as they have attempted to do over the past few weeks, no more than they can stall on Yucca Mountain indefinitely.”

Seriously? Do you really believe what you just wrote there Ed? Have you been paying attention the last 5 years? Is there an instance yet of “they can’t do that” where, in fact, they’ve stopped doing something they aren’t supposed to do? Or do they simply flip everyone off and do whatever the ever loving f*ck they want to do?

Rhetorical question – no need to answer.

Midas on August 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Here is what you learn in your first Contracts course in law school

Contracts (and laws) can only be enforced by police power. So without any effective enforcement capability, the president can pretty much do whatever he wants. The recourse is impeachment, in other words there is no police power that can force a president to uphold the Constitution…it is only political power…and let’s face it, DC is so corrupted by power and money that Dems and Repubs have very little incentive to risk their money and power in a fight for principle.

Just the way it is man…

georgealbert on August 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Then the last recourse – as instructed by our Founders, in both word and deed – is that the people take it upon themselves to *be* that police power to remedy the situation.

At this point, it’s that or tyranny. There are no more political solutions; more of the same approach, from within the system at this point, will simply yield more of the same unacceptable result.

Just the way it is man…

Midas on August 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Here is what you learn in your first Contracts course in law school

Contracts (and laws) can only be enforced by police power. So without any effective enforcement capability, the president can pretty much do whatever he wants. The recourse is impeachment, in other words there is no police power that can force a president to uphold the Constitution…it is only political power…and let’s face it, DC is so corrupted by power and money that Dems and Repubs have very little incentive to risk their money and power in a fight for principle.

Just the way it is man…

georgealbert on August 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Then the last recourse – as instructed by our Founders, in both word and deed – is that the people take it upon themselves to *be* that police power to remedy the situation.

At this point, it’s that or tyranny. There are no more political solutions; more of the same approach, from within the system at this point, will simply yield more of the same unacceptable result.

Just the way it is man…

Midas on August 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM

There is one other recourse that doesn’t seem to be taken real seriously anymore: Nullification. It is not only the state’s right, but it is the people’s duty to disobey unconstitutional, immoral acts by the federal government.

gryphon202 on August 15, 2013 at 5:20 PM

I think we have discovered the Obama Doctrine.

Selkirk on August 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM