Obama mocks Republicans: When I try to “fix” ObamaCare, they call me a tyrant

posted at 11:21 am on March 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via CNS, a perfect complement to this morning’s news of the umpteenth ass-covering ad hoc executive rule change to his pet boondoggle. (This little stand-up routine at DNC HQ was recorded on Friday evening, about an hour after he delivered his somber “there will be costs” statement on Ukraine.) Here’s the result of three years of education at Harvard Law plus several years spent lecturing students as a law prof at the University of Chicago: As long as the president’s trying to “fix things” — and “things” very much includes his party’s prospects in the next election — it’s absurd to hassle him over separation of powers. Which, I’m embarrassed to say, isn’t the first time he’s used that rationale. Remember?

[W]here Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.

I am concerned about the folks who I spoke to today who are working really hard, are trying to figure out how they can send their kids to college, are trying to make sure that they can save for their retirement. And if I can take steps on their behalf, then I’m going to do so. And I would hope that more and more of Congress will say, you know what, since that’s our primary focus, we’re willing to work with you to advance those ideals. But I’m not just going to sit back if the only message from some of these folks is no on everything, and sit around and twiddle my thumbs for the next 1,200 days.

That’s the Obama rule on executive power grabs. If Congress won’t do what he wants and if he can semi-credibly defend his actions as “fixing something” or “doing right by the American people” (or the Libyan people, when it comes to intervening abroad without congressional authorization), he’s entitled to act. The chief limit on this rule is political, not legal: He’s held off on expanding his DREAM amnesty to the entire illegal population, ostensibly because he lacks authority but in reality because he’s nervous how it’ll play for Democrats in the midterms if he does it. If/when his political calculus changes, his calculus about his authority will too. It takes the fine mind of a constitutional lawyer, honed by decades of study, to find this much nuance in the constitutional limits on his own power. Can’t wait for Jonathan Turley’s next appearance before the House.

Exit question via my pal Karl: Remember when Obama denounced Bush’s executive signing statements as “a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability”? Since when is a president’s attempt to “fix things” objectionable?


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Multiple gaskets go off in my head whenever I watch this SOB for more than, say, 10 seconds.

I simply can’t take anymore of his smugness.

bobcalco on March 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Someone needs to stand up, take off the gloves and get in Obama’s face. Screw protocol, screw being polite cause he’s the prez. Bare knuckle fighting. That’s the only thing that will break through this bull$hit with him. He’s counting on people respecting the office and not knock him for a loop.

NavyMustang on March 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

He seems very thrown and concerned by all the nipping at his heels.
You can see how the incessant attacks have just worn him down and eroded his confidence.
Maybe Ted Cruz could show a little merciful humanity and ease up…just a little?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Cheer up! Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy and Ryan are working very hard to facilitate the President’s legislative agenda and secure his legacy with a monumental 2nd term domestic policy achievement.

Wigglesworth on March 4, 2014 at 12:12 PM

For sure, patriots that they are.
It’s not like they’re just gonna buckle under and be remembered for offering nothing but obstruction. They went to D.C. get things done for the American people, right?
To those who say the only time they dig in their heels and show any passion is when it’s a tax cut for the upper brackets, well you can just remind them that they also rolled up their sleeves to work on…um, you know…they, ahh…the other stuff that they talked about like…um….was there another flag amendment proposal this year? No? Well I think they did pass a resolution saying they liked Chick-Fil-A’s excellent wraps. Well maybe they just proposed it? Ok, they ordered some wraps for a meeting.
But still…wow.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

40 acres and a hotair point to the first one who can reduce this to one word.

rogerb on March 4, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Haven’t read all the posts but how about the word “black”?

Barred on March 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

He’s got a big stick, you know. Biden said so.

de rigueur on March 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Actually I’m willing to bet that his “stick” is very very tiny.

gophergirl on March 4, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Komrade Vlad (Putin) isn’t afraid of Obama’s big stick, or his pen or his phone.

Steve Z on March 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Haven’t read all the posts but how about the word “black”?

Barred on March 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

If we have a black President, what will he do about the Black Sea?

Steve Z on March 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Simple question for a simple mind: Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Actually I’m willing to bet that his “stick” is very very tiny.

gophergirl on March 4, 2014 at 12:04 PM

And with that, the shark has been undeniably jumped.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM

It’s always refreshing when obama decides to stop playing their game and call them out for their ridiculousness.

Because everything he said is 100% true, and all of you know it.

everdiso on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Or take a look at some of these, babbling idiot.

de rigueur on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I’m still trying to figure out where obama has tried to “fix” obamacare. He said he’s tried but all he has done is delay, delay, delay.

onesheep on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

They went to D.C. get things done for the American people, right?

But still…wow.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Gnatbrain, obstructing him is a benefit to the land. Imagine if the TEA party wouldn’t have succeeded in 2010.

2014 will make your diapers fill up.

Schadenfreude on March 4, 2014 at 1:49 PM

It’s time for dance lessons from verby, again?

Why didn’t somebody tell me?

Alright, everybody…Duck, dodge, dip, dive, and Dodge!

kingsjester on March 4, 2014 at 1:49 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Simple question for a simple mind: Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM

With what action?
I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

It’s always refreshing when obama decides to stop playing their game and call them out for their ridiculousness.

Because everything he said is 100% true, and all of you know it.

everdiso on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Smells like Teen Spirit in here. Oh, and thanks for admitting that your Cult Leader is referring to himself as a tyrant.

F+

Now, care to answer the following? No, I didn’t think so.

Simple question for a simple mind: Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM

With what action?
I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Answering the question dishonest one. Pretending SCOTUS is a holy entity with infinite constitutional wisdom does not save you. We all have our own opinions about the Constitution. Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Yo Barry…. what gives….ya give’n up on sticking ya thumbs in ya jug ears… wiggling ya fingers and blowing raspberries with ya tongue.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on March 4, 2014 at 1:54 PM

I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaloon on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

SCOTUS in fact has a case right now about your Cult Leader’s Recess Appointments. 3 lower Courts have already ruled those appointments to be unconstitutional, which means they are impeachable offenses.

If SCOTUS upholds those 3 lower courts, will you call for your Cult Leader’s impeachment?

(Starts sundial)

Del Dolemonte on March 4, 2014 at 1:55 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Hard to accomplish anything when everything they pass is blocked my the Dem Senate.

Can I borrow one of Del’s F-?

Barred on March 4, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Or should that be a F+?

Barred on March 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM

It’s always refreshing when obama decides to stop playing their game and call them out for their ridiculousness.

Because everything he said is 100% true, and all of you know it.

everdiso on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Yep, like when Dog Eater said he would close Gitmo within the first 100 days of his administration.

Whatever happened to that place after being closed, did they tear it down or what?

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM

verbie, what do you call leftist obstruction?

Schadenfreude on March 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM

I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaloon on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Did you accept the 3 SCOTUS rulings against Gore in December of 2000? They went against him by a combined total of 21-7.

Del Dolemonte on March 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM

For sure, patriots that they are.
It’s not like they’re just gonna buckle under and be remembered for offering nothing but obstruction. They went to D.C. get things done for the American people, right?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Why verbaluce, certainly you wouldn’t be so dumb as to scream about Republicans “obstructing” Obama and how this represents nothing but a desire to hurt Americans if your own Obama and Obama Party had embraced obstructionism, no?

Turns out you are.

As President Bush prepares for his second term, Democrats in Washington and around the country are organizing for a year of confrontation and resistance, saying they are determined to block Bush’s major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory last November.

Of course, verbaluce, we know you’re a dumb racist who will do anything Obama says because he has black skin. Obama counts on the blind worship of uneducated racist bigots like yourself.

northdallasthirty on March 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Maybe verbs is a miner, she seems to like digging holes and climbing in.

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 1:58 PM

It’s always refreshing when obama decides to stop playing their game and call them out for their ridiculousness.

Because everything he said is 100% true, and all of you know it.

everdiso on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Delaying pain for the middle class until after political elections is NOT fixing anything idiot……and you know it!

Indianatime on March 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM

I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

What rulings?

blink on March 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM

rogerb, this goes next to lostmotherland’s gerrymandering comment.

Bmore, everdiso on yer list?

Schadenfreude on March 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM

It’s always refreshing when obama decides to stop playing their game and call them out for their ridiculousness.

Because everything he said is 100% true, and all of you know it.

everdiso on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Perhaps you missed that the stupid black child screamed at the top of his worthless lungs for the entire Bush administration that any unilateral action by the President was illegal and grounds for impeachment.

Or can racist bigots like yourself not hold the stupid black child to his own rules? Are you making it clear that the stupid black child lied all the way through the Bush presidency for his own political gain? Were you aware of this lie?

northdallasthirty on March 4, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Maybe verbs is a miner, she seems to like digging holes and climbing in.

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 1:58 PM

and keep digging…

Athos on March 4, 2014 at 2:03 PM

To answer the question of how has he acted unconstitutionally, if one reads article II of the document in question, one sees the job as implementing legislation, not “fixing” legislation. Once signed into law, the only means to “fix” laws is or are to go back to the legislature. Obama does not get to “fix” laws. Obama does not have the authority to delay laws. Obama does not have the power to modify laws. He has violated his oath of office and should be impeached. It will not happen, unless he murders a young white boy on TV in front of the nation and still MSNBC would defend him.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on March 4, 2014 at 2:04 PM

********************* ALERT ********************************!!

Ukrainian political crisis
59s
Report: Russia test-fires intercontinental ballistic missile, defense ministry says – RIA via @Reuters

canopfor on March 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM

canopfor on March 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Multiple gaskets go off in my head whenever I watch this SOB for more than, say, 10 seconds.

I simply can’t take anymore of his smugness.

bobcalco on March 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Whenever he speaks, I can’t hit the mute button fast enough. It’s bad enough just reading his short quotes on the net.

Maybe a legitimate reporter might ask him why he signed to bill if it needs to be fixed. Then ask where he gets the constitutional authority to modify law. They ask why that wouldn’t make him a tyrant.

cajunpatriot on March 4, 2014 at 2:06 PM

what will he do about the Black Sea?

Steve Z on March 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM

I think it prefers “African-American Sea” now.

jdpaz on March 4, 2014 at 2:06 PM

With what action?
I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Ha ha ha.

Yeah, nice dodge.

When some in the GOP were threatening to demand that ObamaCare be delayed or that parts of it be delayed the left ran around screaming ITS.THE.LAW! And that to change it would be a reversal of democracy. The Tea Party was taking the country hostage.

But Obama changes all sorts of aspects of the law (more than two dozen to date) which he’s not authorized to do by the text of the law and you people pretend like you don’t know what we’re talking about.

Your obtuseness is the surest sign you’ve got no argument.

gwelf on March 4, 2014 at 2:07 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Or take a look at some of these, babbling idiot.

de rigueur on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Ok.

“Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”

“To repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish American Health Benefit Exchanges Act. ”

“To repeal mandatory funding for school-based health center construction. ”

“To repeal portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to reduce Federal Government spending and to reduce the salaries of Members of Congress, and for other purposes. ”

“To repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish American Health Benefit Exchanges. ”

“To repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund. ”

“To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. ”

“ObamaCare Repeal Act”
To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.”

“To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board. ”

“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual and employer health insurance mandates. ”

“To repeal title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage offered in interstate commerce. ”

“To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

“To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish a national health program administered by the Office of Personnel Management to offer Federal employee health benefits plans to individuals who are not Federal employees, and for other purposes. ”

To be fair, there’s also a few ‘Death Taxes’, Abortion, and Gun bills.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM

canopfor on March 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Whatever, bigot, if a Russian ICBM explodes over an American city it can all be explained as an uncontested high-energy detonation.

Read a physics book sometime.

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM

With what action?
I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

A convenient way to don the veneer of reasonableness, when I’m sure you know of the Supreme Court’s reticence to involve itself in squabbles between the branches.

Having said that, there have been several judicial appointments vacated, and that whole business with the NRLB when Obama decided he could declare Congress in recess on their behalf.

Question: how can the president alter signed legislation? As opposed to having the legislature pass an alteration for him to sign into law?

The Schaef on March 4, 2014 at 2:10 PM

That’s because he’s not trying to fix Obamacare . . . he’s trying to fix the next election.

rplat on March 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM

New thread on obama-utter-stupidity —->

Schadenfreude on March 4, 2014 at 2:12 PM

This clown gives in to Putin = Putin invades Crimea. Republican “leadership” gives in to Obama = Obama overthrows the constitution.
Seems like there’s a pattern here. I just can’t see what it is.
/

Garym on March 4, 2014 at 2:12 PM

To be fair, there’s also a few ‘Death Taxes’, Abortion, and Gun bills.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Oh, that’s right, I forgot, you measure the value of a governing official by their capacity to increase the size, power and expense of federal government.

The Schaef on March 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Hey mealy mouth: Is Obama acting unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM

With what action?
I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

I’m certain this reprobate psychopath thinks the same thing on gun laws.

Murphy9 on March 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM

With what action?
I accept SCOTUS rulings here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM

A convenient way to don the veneer of reasonableness, when I’m sure you know of the Supreme Court’s reticence to involve itself in squabbles between the branches.

The Schaef on March 4, 2014 at 2:10 PM

How else would you propose such disputes and differing constitutional interpretations get settled?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:14 PM

How else would you propose such disputes and differing constitutional interpretations get settled?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:14 PM

How else do you propose we get an honest viewpoint out of your lying and dishonest a$$? Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Oy. The most recent open reg hasn’t led to a better class of leftist troll – if that is even possible.

On the other hand, I see Verbaloon is still taking the stoopid pretty strong the hoop.

H.E. Pennypacker on March 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM

 
Hey mealy mouth: Is Obama acting unconstitutionally or not?
 
NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM

 
Let’s ask verbaluce:
 

Perhaps you weren’t a member of the Bush/Cheney apology choir during the time they were actually (not hypothetically)subverting the constitution… Maybe you were outraged by the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping.
But maybe, like so many here, you were a full throated cheerleader then?
 
verbaluce on March 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

rogerb on March 4, 2014 at 2:17 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Why, it is almost as if they read the abomination of a bill, found parts that are FUBAR, and are trying to fix them using constitutionally mandated processes as opposed to shotgun quasi-imperial and unconstitutional decrees.

F X Muldoon on March 4, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Oy. The most recent open reg hasn’t led to a better class of leftist troll – if that is even possible.

On the other hand, I see Verbaloon is still taking the stoopid pretty strong TO the hoop.

H.E. Pennypacker on March 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Fixed.

H.E. Pennypacker on March 4, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Let’s ask verbaluce:

Perhaps you weren’t a member of the Bush/Cheney apology choir during the time they were actually (not hypothetically)subverting the constitution… Maybe you were outraged by the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping.
But maybe, like so many here, you were a full throated cheerleader then?

verbaluce on March 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

rogerb on March 4, 2014 at 2:17 PM

It’s hard for a deliberately obtuse little pr!ck to keep up with his own dishonesty.

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Pretty sure that one is mindless.

novaculus on March 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Straight from his boook of rules:

Rules for Radicals

5.“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

6.“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

11.“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

13.“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Carnac on March 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM

“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual and employer health insurance mandates. ”

“To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Yet you’re okay with this as long as Obama does the same thing by EO… and calls it “a waiver” or “deadline extension”?

de rigueur on March 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM

How else would you propose such disputes and differing constitutional interpretations get settled?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:14 PM

How else do you propose we get an honest viewpoint out of your lying and dishonest a$$? Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I think there’s been some fair points made on excesses of executive power – both in the Bush and now with the Obama administrations.
The loudest complaints are often partisan and hypocritical.
I welcome judicial review.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM

They went to D.C. get things done for the American people, right?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

And passed ObamaCare, which America hates.

Why don’t you shut up and listen for a spell?

Chuck Schick on March 4, 2014 at 2:25 PM

I think there’s been some fair points made on excesses of executive power – both in the Bush and now with the Obama administrations.
The loudest complaints are often partisan and hypocritical.
I welcome judicial review.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM

IOW rogerb called me out on my idiotic comments, so i’ll just backtrack now.

Garym on March 4, 2014 at 2:27 PM

I think there’s been some fair points made on excesses of executive power – both in the Bush and now with the Obama administrations.
The loudest complaints are often partisan and hypocritical.
I welcome judicial review.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 2:28 PM

I’m still trying to figure out where obama has tried to “fix” obamacare. He said he’s tried but all he has done is delay, delay, delay.

onesheep on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Silly wabbit. “Fixing” Obamacare doesn’t have anything to do with putting a polish on that gigantic turd. “Fixing” Obamacare is Obama-speak for delaying the inevitable chaos and destruction until after the next election cycle. Because a majority of the electorate is too stupid and inattentive to understand what he is up to, so long as their own personal ox isn’t gored.

novaculus on March 4, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Sorry if I killed the thread, guys.

rogerb on March 4, 2014 at 2:30 PM

I welcome judicial review.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Perhaps you weren’t a member of the Bush/Cheney apology choir during the time they were actually (not hypothetically)subverting the constitution… Maybe you were outraged by the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping.
But maybe, like so many here, you were a full throated cheerleader then?

verbaluce on March 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Was this judicially reviewed before you made that statement on March 7, 2013?

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 2:31 PM

For sure, patriots that they are.
It’s not like they’re just gonna buckle under and be remembered for offering nothing but obstruction. They went to D.C. get things done for the American people, right?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Obama’s tool Harry Reid engages in more obstruction every single day than all the Republicans in Congress combined, you mendacious hypocrite.

novaculus on March 4, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Obama’s tool Harry Reid engages in more obstruction every single day than all the Republicans in Congress combined, you mendacious hypocrite.

novaculus on March 4, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Well….technically not forwarding a budget isn’t necessarily obstruction, you know.

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Was this judicially reviewed before you made that statement on March 7, 2013?

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 2:31 PM

I believe he is basing his opinion on a ruling from the 13 District Court of his A$$. That court has not yet rendered a verdict on Obama since it only convenes during Republican administrations.

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 2:35 PM

I am reminded of Ralph Kramden: “Well, har-de-har har har har, Alice!

oldennis on March 4, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Haven’t read all the posts but how about the word “black”?

Barred on March 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Does that refer to ni&&a or ni&&er?

Nutstuyu on March 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM

I’m sure a strong response from Boehner will look like the following;
Dear Mr. President:
Your law–Obamacare –cannot be arbitrarily “fixed” as you’re attempting to sell it to the low information voters. It is in fact a law like any other that you cannot change without going through, not around, congress.
But, being a constitutional law professor from such an elitist Ivy League school as Harvard, you already know that, so one can only surmise you’ve once again reduced the high office of the president to one of playing mere political propaganda games.

Don L on March 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Well….technically not forwarding a budget isn’t necessarily obstruction, you know.

Bishop on March 4, 2014 at 2:33 PM

I’ll see your budget shenanigans and raise you with Iran sanctions legislation, which would surely pass the Senate with many Democrat votes if Reid would let it reach the floor.

novaculus on March 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Ah look, the dog and pony show continues. And watch the rest of the branches of government…do absolutely nothing.

zacmidnigh on March 4, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Umm you are a tyrant for ignoring that a majority doesn’t want your law and you passed it without a single GOP vote.

Liar that he is, he passed it just after campaigning on bipartisan blah blah blah.

He is a clueless poser and anyone who voted for him was duped.

DavidM on March 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM

What a clever and CLEAN black boy

golfmann on March 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM

How else would you propose such disputes and differing constitutional interpretations get settled?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:14 PM

So you’re saying the president is incapable of violating the Constitution unless and until the Supreme Court rules against him? Even though they are not actually a referee between the branches?

Does that mean you recant your prior and apparently libelous comments against the previous administration?

The Schaef on March 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM

If Obama believes his own crap, he is mentally deranged.

VorDaj on March 4, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Sorry if I killed the thread, guys.

rogerb on March 4, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Killed it you did! He has yet to comeback and answer his own hypocrisy.

Garym on March 4, 2014 at 3:03 PM

I think that to understand the way Obama thinks is very easy. He doesn’t like “typical” White people. He thinks they are inherently bad (except for the ones beneath him and the ones who tell him how wonderful he is). He equates the Republican party with White people, so therefore everything Obama does, in his mind, is altruistic because he is in a battle against people he doesn’t like, people he thinks are inherently evil. When he heard “White man’s greed fuels a world in need”, he wept. He didn’t attend Trinity United for political reasons. He aligned himself with Rev Wright because he loved hearing the constant Caucasian bashing. That is where all of his venom against his White foes comes from.

OxyCon on March 4, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Great, now he’s channeling Nelson from the Simpsons?
“What’s the matter? I said Ha ha.”

Rivers on March 4, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Dear me, I do so wish somebody in the Administration would explain the actual meaning of the word “usurp” to Dear Leader; this is the second speech in which he’s misused it.

You’d think there might be a college graduate or a lawyer or somebody who read a book who could help him out.

But maybe he actually meant “UPCYCLE” his authority; like possibly refurbishing that old, worn-out, limited executive authority into a sparkly new no-holds-barred I-am-the-only-Constitutional-lawyer-I-know authority.

A little gold spray paint, some raffia; you can create something new and wonderful with any old discard this way.

Yup. That’s what he’s being criticized for. By some folks.

Pless1foEngrish on March 4, 2014 at 3:08 PM

An insufferable ass is an insufferable ass, of course, of course
And no one can talk sense to an insufferable ass, of course
And especially, of course, if the insufferable ass is the famous Barack Obama
Go right to the source and ask the insufferable ass
He’ll give you the answer that deceivers will endorse
He’s always on a dissemblers course
Talk to Barack Obama

Barack Obama just yakkity yaks a streak and wastes your time of day
Does any sane person even believe anymore a single thing he has to say?
An insufferable ass is an insufferable ass, of course, of course
And this one’ll talk in prevaricating circles til his voice is hoarse
You never heard of a talking insufferable ass?
Well, listen to this
He is Barack Obama!

Cheshire Cat on March 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret.

Straw-man much? Name names or STFU.

But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions

Except that you have the largest “rabbit ears*” of any President in a long time. You obsess about opinions that are counter to yours.

*This is not a reference to the size and shape of his ears. If I was going for that, I would have used dumbo ears.

Mallard T. Drake on March 4, 2014 at 3:23 PM

If Trayvon had had a father…..

Most in Congress are lawyers of shifty verbiage. That’s central to the nation’s problems.

viking01 on March 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM

With his attempted justification of his actions being “I’m fixing things” and it’s “For the people”, what Obama is really saying is “The end justifies the means” which is the philosophy of government of tyrants, and always has been and always will be.

VorDaj on March 4, 2014 at 3:28 PM

I welcome judicial review.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM

What do you mean by this? You said that you “accept SCOTUS rulings”. That implies rulings that have already occurred. What rulings were you referring to?

blink on March 4, 2014 at 2:27 PM

I meant just that. I understand there hasn’t been a ruling specifically here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Bmore, everdiso on yer list?

Schadenfreude on March 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Oh yeah. Made it in at number 6. ; )

Bmore on March 4, 2014 at 3:34 PM

How else would you propose such disputes and differing constitutional interpretations get settled?

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 2:14 PM

So you’re saying the president is incapable of violating the Constitution unless and until the Supreme Court rules against him? Even though they are not actually a referee between the branches?

Does that mean you recant your prior and apparently libelous comments against the previous administration?

The Schaef on March 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM

What?
No – any president is capable of violating the Constitution or breaking the law.
You might want to look to John ‘If The President Does it, it is legal’ Yoo on how and when – if ever – it can be determined that the President has acted unconstitutionally.
I do not recant my opinions about various instances with the previous admin. But I would accept a ruling on it.
(And if what I offered was libelous – well we’re all going to jail. Ha.)

I do not support or advocate for Bush or Cheney being brought before The Hague…if that’s what you’re assuming.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Sorry if I killed the thread, guys.

rogerb on March 4, 2014 at 2:30 PM

It was more of an answer than you’re going to get now.

Alien on March 4, 2014 at 3:43 PM

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Community organizing, again. Same face, same bull.

Does this clown know how over exposed he is?

old school on March 4, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Because everything he said is 100% true, and all of you know it.

everdiso on March 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Well I do agree with the Tyrant part.

Buttercup on March 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM

I do not recant my opinions about various instances with the previous admin.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Then you are out of bounds to demand issued rulings from other readers here as a prerequisite for criticizing the executive overreach of the current administration. They have every bit as valid a basis for their criticisms as you feel you had.

The Schaef on March 4, 2014 at 4:00 PM

I understand there hasn’t been a ruling specifically here.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Ouch! You’ve been busted in a lie. It’s obvious that you didn’t understand that until AFTER people made fun of you.

blink on March 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Not true.
But believe what you want.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Not true.
But believe what you want.

verbaluce on March 4, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Did someone hack your Twitter account, verbalweiner?

Has Obama acted unconstitutionally or not?

NotCoach on March 4, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Worst president in our lifetimes, bar none.

hawkdriver on March 4, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4