Obama’s Contempt for Constitution Disqualifies Him on Supreme Court Appointment

Obama lost the right to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice - by his abject contempt for the Constitution. The Founders created a constitutional way to protect Americans from Obama's overreach.

Obama lost the right to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice – by his abject contempt for the Constitution. The Founders created a constitutional way to protect Americans from Obama’s overreach – divided government powers. Checks and Balances have never mattered so much.

Obama has shown utter contempt for the US constitution. But now when he wants to double down on his “fundamental transformation of America”, he is hypocritically wrapping himself in the Constitution.  The sudden and unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia has created a political opportunity for Obama. Within hours of the announcement of Scalia’s death, Obama rushed to the microphones to declare he would appoint a Justice, evoking the concept of his Constitutional responsibility. The great irony is that Obama routinely, and openly, refuses to be bound by the limits or requirements of the constitution for most of his actions.  It is clear that Obama’s claim of a Constitutional necessity to appoint a justice is just the latest example of playing politics to advance his un-American agenda. In other words Obama is a constitutional hypocrite. Fortunately, our founders planned for a President who ignored the constitution and consent of the governed: they created a divided government. Americans should be grateful for the founders’ innovation – checks and balances of a divided government with partial power in the hand of the President and partial power in the hands of the Senate. When a President has so obviously violated the will of Americans and the limit of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Senate to deny him further power to destroy America and the lives of its citizens.

Obama’s Contempt for the Constitution

Obama has a clear, undeniable track record of showing disdain for the constitution. An outstanding review of his constitutional contempt is provided by Judicial Watch. He routinely re-allocates funds to government programs that Congress never authorized. For example – without Congressional approval – he is re-allocating billions to the “basic health program” of Obamacare, he re-allocated $1 billion for a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation from the Department of Commerce, billions from within the FCC to pay for internet and other telecommunication expansions for patronage spending (to buy votes).

Obama had his IRS head, Lois Lerner, target grassroots groups to ensure they couldn’t form not-for-profit organizations – simply because they opposed him. In 2013 alone, Obama had multiple constitutional violations by delaying key aspects of his own Obamacare law to make implementation more politically palatable to the country. According to Forbes: “Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law.” Without the advice and consent of Congress, Obama agreed to deals on the Transpacific partnership, an Iranian nuclear deal and a massive UN power grab on climate change (“the Paris accords”). Obama initiated Cruise missile bombing of Libya without Congressional authority and failed to report back to Congress at the 60 day deadline (even the New York Times complained about this).  Obama, after repeatedly stating the constitution prevented him from doing so, ultimately granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens – an act declared unconstitutional by the Federal courts. Just a few days ago, Obama’s EPA regulations to shut down coal-fired electricity were blocked by the Supreme Court. Obama’s Federal Commination’s commission seeks to regulate speech on the internet. Obama’s NSA is spying on the phone records of Americans without a warrant. Obama even complains that the Constitution’s bill of rights are a “charter of negative liberties”. He is unhappy that the constitution is limiting the power of government to deny natural freedom to Americans and would rather have a constitution that grants (and removes) the rights of citizens and broadly empowers the government.

The Constitution protects Americans from an uncontrolled President

The power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice does not belong to the President. The power to appoint Supreme Court Justices really belongs to the people of the United States. The people of the United States created the Constitution and use it to lend their natural powers of self-governance to a federal government in very limited ways. The nature of the constitution is well described in its preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

“We the People” clearly stated that we established this Constitution “to establish justice”, promote “tranquility”, “general welfare” and to secure “Liberty” for us and our Children. The President has so violated the tenants of this preamble that he must be reined in by the US Senate. He has destroyed rather than promote justice for all Americans; promoted division rather than tranquility; worked for the welfare of connected classes, rather than for all of us in General; and is working to destroy Liberty for us and our children.

The tool the founders created to prevent these acts by an abusive President is the divided government. The Senate shall decide if the President’s appointments are acceptable. The American people have elected a US Senate that is generally in opposition to the President’s actions. If the people were consenting to the President’s actions, the Senate would be dominated by those who support him. The Founders brilliantly recognized the value of periodic elections to change the members of the various components of government – a means of government accountability. This the Constitution states:

(The President) “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” (article II, Section 2)

The Senate is under no obligation to consent to an appointment to the other powerful branch of divided government: the judiciary. In fact, it is clear that given the clear and undeniable unconstitutional behavior of President Obama, the Senate has a duty to deny his ability to appoint a third justice to the United States Supreme Court. Americans will have the opportunity with the 2016 Presidential elections to make clear what type of President they trust with the power to “establish justice” through federal Judicial appointments. Those who claim that the Constitution means the President must have his appointment approved now, should take care to remember that the Senate has an equal Constitutional authority to deny that appointment. Americans should take great comfort in the Senate’s clear refusal to allow an Obama appointment to the Supreme Court and should demand that the US Senate remain steadfast in exercising their refusal. Obama long ago lost the right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the last 11 months of a Presidency marked by contempt for the American people and the US Constitution.