• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The Obama Experts vs. the Rule of Law

    Last week President Barack Obama’s most recently minted czar, Special Advisor to the President for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Elizabeth Warren, spoke to 400 bankers at the swanky Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, DC. Her message, according to The Washington Post: “Behave, play nice, and we’ll get along just fine.” Specifically, Warren promised to take a more “principles-based approach” to regulation, rather than clearly articulating “thou shalt not” rules that banks could rely on. For this Progressive White House, an enlightened expert, like Warren, given broad new powers by an unaccountably vague statute is exactly what the federal government needs to enforce order on our complex modern world. For our Founding Fathers, however, everything about Warren, from the way she attained her new powers to the way she plans to use them, is antithetical to our nation’s First Principles and the United States Constitution.

    Look again at Warren’s title. She is not the director of the CFPB nor does she even work for it. For her to actually head the agency, President Obama would have to submit her name to the Senate to meet the Constitution’s “advice and consent” requirement. But President Obama did not want that transparency. Instead he decided to subvert the Constitution by making her his “special advisor” that would lead a team of “about 30 or 40 people at the Department of Treasury” to set up the CFPB. Yale Constitutional law professor Bruce Ackerman described Obama’s Warren chicanery as “another milestone down the path toward an imperial presidency.”

    But Warren’s appointment is just the beginning of her assault on the Constitution. Her rejection of rules-based governing, cited above, is also a rejection of our nation’s First Principles. Hillsdale College Ronald Pestritto explains:

    The Founders understood that there are two fundamental ways in which government can exercise its authority. The first is a system of arbitrary rule, where the government decides how to act on an ad hoc basis, leaving decisions up to the whim of whatever official or officials happen to be in charge; the second way is to implement a system grounded in the rule of law, where legal rules are made in advance and published, binding both government and citizens and allowing the latter to know exactly what they have to do or not to do in order to avoid the coercive authority of the former.

    To be fair, Warren is hardly the only example of the Obama administration’s assault on the Rule of Law in favor of the arbitrary rule of government experts. In fact, the entire progressive movement is based on discarding the separation of powers at the core of the U.S. Constitution in favor of empowering the Administrative State. Progressive movement founder President Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1891: “Give us administrative elasticity and discretion, free us from the idea that checks and balances are to be carried down through all stages of organization.”

    Freeing themselves from the “checks and balances” supplied in the Constitution is exactly what the Obama administration has been doing since day one. Just consider the “outrageous and illegal” takeover of Chrysler, the shakedown of BP, the assertion that President Obama can rewrite our nation’s immigration laws simply by not enforcing them, the refusal to enforce anti-voting fraud laws, and Obamacare czar Kathleen Sebelius’ threats  insurance companies. The pattern is clear: this administration audaciously believes that their experts are always right and that the Constitution is just a barrier to their effective administration of the country. This is not what our Founders intended. This must be stopped.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    67 Responses to Morning Bell: The Obama Experts vs. the Rule of Law

    1. Jeanne Stotler, Wood says:

      First order for the next Congress to be seated Jan 3, 2011, IMPEACH HIM, then appoint a special consel to look into filing charges of Treason, and what ever laws he has broken. Charge all who have partaken in this as well.

    2. Richie FL says:

      I guess our only hope is the new congress will fight Obama using the constitution as its weapon. It

      is a sad situation that congress has allowed all of this to go on. It has nothing to do with being a

      democrat or republican it's just being an American .

    3. Michael Kennedy, Pal says:

      I agree that Obama is dangerously, indeed usurpatiously, imperial in the exercise of presidential powers, but that practice did not begin with him: Lincoln and Wilson and FDR and Nixon were his forebears, and he is merely exploiting a practice they extra-constitutionally [or worse] cemented into the Republic. I think it to be an impeachable offense, but so to for those originators.

    4. Alexander S. Milne, says:

      If this President is acting against or the Constitution, why can't the Congress impeach him?

    5. Ree, Ft Myers, FL says:

      I do not understand why we sit and watch this Administration abuse it's powers. Why is there not an impeachment process started? How far will we allow this to go? We need some action by the Republicans.

    6. Bub says:

      there must be some previsions to control this sort of abuse

      we can't let one man totally destroy the country, after all the wars fought to

      prevent this from happening —

    7. C LabOUNTY MERRITT I says:

      This is a waste of time for Heritage to pick through the details of BHO's actions and appointments.

      BHO was very clear in 2008 of his beliefs and plans.

      What did people think "spreading the wealth" meant.

      He said in an interview he didn't care about the the economics of the impact of raising taxes, he cared about being fair. He also used the term "collective" frequently in his eloquent speeches.

      In case that's not clear enough, here it is again, BHO is a pure communist ideologue.

      He believes communism is the way to " move the country forward".

      Unfortunately we have many people in government that believe the same thing.

      So what do we do now?

    8. ThomNJ says:

      Add to that list also the strong arming of banks to provide extorted dollars to community organizations and forcing banks to open offices in areas they otherwise would not and offering loans (yet again) to risky parties – all under threat of lawsuits by the feds. Pretty sad state of affairs.

    9. KB in PA says:

      Yes, it must be stopped. And once it's stopped, it must be punished. Severely punished.

    10. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      HOW many times did the HF

      write about the

      "RULE OF LAW"

      when Bush's was making up his own RULES

      in the Signing Statements?


    11. Lloyd Scallan (New O says:

      I am always amazed that HF reports Obama's efforts to use his power to

      circumvent the true intentions of the founding fathers and the rule of law set forth

      by our Cnstitution as news. By this point in time, if we all cannot understand

      that Obama's agenda is to destroy America as we know it, their is really no hope to save our nation.

    12. John Burton, Suisun says:

      Is there no one in Congress with the courage to challenge this? Is this not a series of impeachable offenses? Can no suite be brought before the courts? Cannot the purse be snapped shut? What is wrong with those elected to the houses of the First Article? Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the people for whom this government was founded and is sustained. In November we will see who among us have strayed — and deal with this sickness.

    13. Norm Klevens says:

      Next year at this time, if the Republicans take control of both houses of congress all we will hear from the foolish left is that the Republicans are subverting the Constitution. [They do not know the Constitution's meaning.] Obama sees corporations giving money to political campaigns like the union, on his side and he yelps like the animal he is. One of the yelps was at an otherwise dignified event, the state of the union, a real [and not made up] historical event that he once again disgraced by calling out the supreme court. In his book, he has sa

    14. Norm Klevens says:

      Next year at this time, if the Republicans take control of both houses of congress all we will hear from the foolish left is that the Republicans are subverting the Constitution. [They do not know the Constitution's meaning.] Obama sees corporations giving money to political campaigns like the union, on his side and he yelps like the animal he is. One of the yelps was at an otherwise dignified event, the state of the union, a real [and not made up] historical event that he once again disgraced by calling out the supreme court. In his book, he has said the Constitution is is an worthy document. And he has trashed it, just like he trashed America.

    15. Lauarie, Hawaii says:

      How do we stop this???? We were hoping if we vote for the ethical people, but now they are by-passing congress for tyrannical, methods with these czars and executive orders to ensure their cronies get billions of dollars for oil and fluorescent light bulb projects, stealing our freedoms and destroying our jobs, to the point that they couldn't care less of they are re-elected because they have their diamond parachutes under the table. Unfortunately, they are driving people to a revolution if that is the only alternative. We are all desparate.

    16. Drew Page, IL says:

      Many of us here in the U.S. who pay attention to what Mr. Obama says and does have come to learn of his feelings about the U.S. Constitution. He is on record as saying that he believes the Bill of Rights is a "negative list of rights" in that it restricts the authority of the government. (Which is exactly what the Bill or rights was intended to do.)

      I believe that Mr. Obama is dishonest and therefore untrustworthy. The examples of his dishonesty are almost too numberous to list. However, I can recall with absolute clarity how he said over and over again during his campaign that his administration would be the most transparent in history. I remember his promise to post all proposed legislation on the internet for five days before acting on it, only to watch him sign the 2,500 page, $860 billion Stimulus plan within 48 hours of it reaching his desk, without posting it on the internet and without even reading it.

      I remember his promise, repeated dozens of times during the campaign, of how there would be open round table discussions on health care reform, which would include doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, representatives from the pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies and Congressional representatives of both political parties — all of which would be televised on C-SPAN, to show the American public who was representing their best interests. None of this occured. The 2,800 page health care reform bill was not posted on the internet prior to its passage, nor was it read by the Senators and Representatives who passed the legislation, nor was it read by President Obama, who signed it into law.

      I remember with great clarity Mr. Obama's repeated promises of how his health care reform initiative was going to bring down the cost of health insurance. Try to find any sane person today in the Congressional Budget Office today who will agree with this.

      I remember his endless promises of how Americans could keep the health plans they had. Tell that to those who are covered under Medicare Advantage plans.

      Mr. Obama sat in Reverend Wright's church for 20 years, yet doesn't recall any of Reverend Wright's diatribes or condemnations of America.

      One day he is talking about his Christian faith and on another day he's talking about his Muslim faith.

      This is the man who said he didn't want to be president of the "Red" states, or the "Blue" states, but of the United States. And yet at every posssible opportunity, from the day he began campaigning for the presidency right up to today, he has blamed and continues to blame Republicans in general, and George Bush in particular, for every problem in America.

      This is the man who was going to make race irrelevant in America. Yet, the first remarks out of his mouth when learning of a black Harvard professor who was arrested by a white policeman for trying to break into his own home was "the police acted stupidly". When former senior attorney at the DOJ, Mr. J. Christian Adams, resigned in disgust because of directives issued by Deputy Ass't. Attorney General, Julie Fernandes, telling DOJ attorneys not to investigate or prosecutive charges of black-on-white voter intimidation, Mr. Obama ordered no investigation into the matter. When the Commission on Civil Rights, before whom Mr. Adams testified, requested subpoenas from the DOJ, to have Ms. Fernandes and Mr. Adams former direct boss testify under oath, these subpoenas were denied by DOJ and Obama said nothing. Recently another attorney at DOJ, Mr, Christain Coates, testified before the Civil Rights Commission, saying that Ms. Fernandes did in fact issue directives that DOJ attorneys were not to prosecute alleged black-on-white voter intimidation charges, confirming the testimony of Mr. Adams. when pressed for details by the Commission, Mr. Coates told the Commission that he was instructed by DOJ to refuse to provide those details. Mr. Obama's silence is deafening.

      These are but a few of the examples of why I believe Mr. Obama is dishonest and untrustworthy. I believe that I am not the only person here in america who feels this way. In less than 30 days, I and others who feel as I do will make our feelings known at the polls. Hopefully, we will strip Mr. Obama of his rubber stamp Democrat supporters and enablers in the House and Senate thereby sharply limiting his power.

    17. Janet, Orlando, FL says:

      Isn't she something like the old ladies in the halls in the USSR, that kept track of everyone's business? We are becoming a "policed" state with all these czars who have no checks outside of the "President".

    18. Carol,AZ says:

      "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who will not".

      Thomas Jefferson

    19. Andrew Colon, Colone says:


      I enjoyed your post on Obama and the Rule of Law. It appears to me that Obama has/is copying the governing style of FDR. In my readings, FDR seemed to believe that he and his appointees were the 'experts' and that anyone outside of his circle who did not agree with his administration was the enemy (my words). FDR bullied business and pushed through regulations and laws that were later ruled unconstitional.

      Would you agree that the same style of governing is perpetrated by this current administration?

      Thanks! Andrew Colon

    20. Carol In CA says:

      The Constitution, Congress and the Senate have been made obsolete. Not with just this one appointee but with many of the Czars.

      All I know is Mr. B HO should be tried for treason.

    21. Suzanne-Florida says:

      Can anything surprise us any longer? Now Warren! Favored groups will receive kid gloves & all others will be made to suffer or collapse…..Recently Interior, Salazar, stated that HE and he alone would decide when oil platforms could once again function. Of course he takes orders from the WH & has no regard for destroying an entire industry or the 20,000+ workers. So far 5, that's 5 platforms have left for greener pastures. Possibly they are on their way to the other side of the Gulf where Obama recently gave one billion dollars to Mexico to drill deep wells or possibly a longer journey to Brazil where ouir esteemed president gave two billion of our tax money to assist that country.

      We already have an imperial presidency and can only hope we can survive the next two years of our Executive Ordered president. God help us!


    22. BillH - Augusta GA says:

      This next Congress must find a way to eliminate these czars before they take over the government and create a new imperialism. With unfettered authority, players like Warren can subvert every law and regulation to reshape the economy as they wish. And who is paying these people? It has to be stopped and soon!

    23. Randy Courtway Surpr says:

      Let it be known that, the dreams from his father are screams of mine.

    24. Dr. Thomas Hennes says:

      Rave on! It's all well and good to point out all these problems with the Obama admistration, but, no one is actually doing anything to stop it while they are still in "POWER". The Heritage group has pointed out many abuses of power, but to my knowledge, hasn't taken any real action to avert it.

    25. jim cronover says:

      lol sounds like the millionairs have once again been routed by obama, You consertatives need to understand that obama is loved by most Americans and he will win 4 more years .Obama has many enemies and they are all the enemies of the working class.Maybe you consertatives better get on the bus or get left behind.

    26. pepka- Florida says:

      For once, I disagree with your post. We, the consumers, need protection from thje unscrupolous antics of the banking industry. At thsi time, maybe Obama did not follow the proper procedure for having Elizabeth Warren serve his administration, maybe the spproach taken by his administration does not follow constitutional guidelines. The list can be extended to many issues; however, what is of importance is that we, the citizen, have protection from the banking system.

    27. Dennis Georgia says:

      First of all I will admit I am not a Harvard, Yale, Pinceton, nor even a colledge graduate, what I am is just a plain ole country boy with some common since. I have read the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, so far these two documents have meant nothing to obama, reid, pelosi nor any of the so called czars that the "wonderus one" has apponited. I see that obama is seting himself up to be a dictator of this country. The rule of law means nothing to any of them, they are intent on ruining America, making all of us slaves to the "guvment", and under the rule of the un and islam. My question is, will we as free citizens of America sit on our butts and allow this to happen, or will we change the way we are headed in Novemeber?????

    28. Judith in Michigan says:

      In 2008, during several interviews, candidate Obama opined that The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,and The United States has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution.

      During a press briefing in October, 2009, Nancy Pelosi, when asked by a CNS reporter where in The Constituton the government was granted the authority to force US citizens to purchase health insurance, Ms Pelosi's famous reply was, " Are you serious? Are you serious?"

      Today, in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that the esteemed Patrick Leahy wants Congress to pass a law allowing retired Justices to "pinch-hit" for justices who must recuse themselves from hearing a case for one reason or another. Wow! No chance of abuse and fraud there, right?

      The bottom line is that it appears this current administration just doesn't like The Constitution, nor the rule of law very much. They are determined to deem our Founding Documents null and void while they still have a chance. Their only mistake has been to let the camouflage slip. Americans have now caught on to their scam.

    29. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      For some people, those born between 1970 and 2000, Watergate's ancient history.

      Who now, except for we aging Baby Boomers, remembers the time when a President of the United States ordered the break in of the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in the Watergate Hotel and Apartments? I do. I was thirteen in September of 1972. I remember Watergate. Watergate was the scandal that brought down the Nixon Administration and brought an obscure congressman from Michigan, who was the first vice president under the 25th Amendment, into the Oval Office as the 38th President of the United States. I'm referring to Gerald Ford, who'd committed political suicide by pardoning Richard Nixon. Why am I bringing up Watergate? Because it was Watergate that caused the Republican Massacre in 1974. It brought a whole new class of Democrats to power in Congress and the Democrats maintained their majorities in the House and the Senate—-which they'd held for twenty years. The Democrats lost their Senate majority in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected but regained it six years later. Nothing changed between 1954 and 1986. However, everything changed between 1954 and 1994. That was when the Republicans regained control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. They retained it until 2006. That was when scandals gave it to Nancy Pelosi. So why am I doing this? Because Obama's legal experts are behaving like Nixon's. Nixon thought he was above the law. Unfortunately, so too,

      does Obama. Obama, like Nixon, will probably engage in dirty tricks during the 2012 elections.

    30. Patrick Napier, Tocc says:

      Why hasn't this president been IMPEACHED ? He has violated enough of our U.S.Constitution to be guilty and the list seems endless. How long must the American people suffer his arrogance ?

    31. and2therepublic, ill says:

      "The important distinction so well understood in America between a constitution established by the people, and unalterable by the government; and a law established by the government, and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also, a full power to change the form of government." – James Madison – Federalist No. 53

    32. Neal Mallett,CT says:

      This will change,simply put-there are more of us,then them. those whom really care about this country will be out in force nov 2nd,and they can not stop it.Start the count down,

    33. and2therepublic, ill says:

      "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." – James Madison – Federalist No. 47

      "The important distinction so well understood in America between a constitution established by the people, and unalterable by the government; and a law established by the government, and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also, a full power to change the form of government." – James Madison – Federalist No. 53

    34. Ben C. Ann Arbor, MI says:

      Blair – your points are well stated. I was also around during Watergate and remember the process that occured that resulted in Nixons political demise. Spiro Agnew was removed from office and Gerald Ford installed as vice president to have a person no one would dispute that would replace Nixon following his resignation. My memory is that the press portrayed Ford as a stumbling baffoon (Ford played center for U of M football and had horrible knees as a result) and he simply could not get enough political capital to get anything done. If Nixon and Obama are truely the same then the outcomes should be the same. I am not really sure Biden is who we want for President – but it would really be entertaining!

    35. Timpclimber Provo, U says:

      I did a 15 minute search of the HF criticisms of Bush and found numerous examples where HF took his administration to task on budget, military, and domestic policy issues. HF did strongly defend the Patriot Act by looking at complaints filed by those who felt it led to discrimination and finding most of them to be without merit. Bush made 8-10 temporary appointments like Bolton to the UN but he never set up whole agencies without congressional approval. Obama's end run appointments will end up in the hundreds. He also signed into law an agency that has no oversight or budget controls. He and the Democrat controlled congress have increased the size and intrusion of the Federal Government into out lives that makes the Patriot Act look like peanuts.

    36. dany, california says:

      Your words of dismay ring false given your silence during the Bush administration's still unparalleled expansion of executive power. Apparently, expanding the power of the president is fine with you when:

      a. it's done by a republican and

      b: it's done in the name of "national security"

      but you object when:

      a. it's done by a democrat

      b. it's done in the name of social welfare

      Your objections are partisan, political and philosophical, not legal ones, even if you couch them in legal terms.

      This is known as hypocrisy.

    37. Pingback: Robert Samuelson on How to Create Jobs « Shopfloor

    38. David Bess, Carson C says:

      We had better resolve these issues now or the election of 2012 will be wide open to fraud and minipulation from the federal government. The obama adminstration has underlined that the Voting rights act is not ehtinic neutral. Non-inforcement of the VRA to the letter of the law opens the door to massive minuplation of election returns. Hence Dictator obama.

    39. B hall Syosset N.Y. says:

      I am not an obama supporter,but when are you impeache obama folks going to understand that the must be guilty of High Crimes{felonies} and Misdomenors to have an impeachment procedeing. Moreover it takes a supermajority to convict in the Senate. Therefore it is a fools errand. Even we win a 51 seat majority in that body.

    40. Barb in Wiscosnin says:

      Impeachment may not be the best route to go with this imposter president that acts as a self-proclaimed king. What must happen must start with a new Congress with a consevative majority that wishes to uphold our Constitution. They MUST be prodded by all of us to roll up their shirtsleeves and delve into serious investigations as to the mysterious King Obama's eligibility to hold the office of president. There are far too many secrets and sealed records in regard to his birth, schooling, papers, finances, travels and background. Obama has spent a fortune hiding much of his past. To impeach him would legitimize him. He must be exposed and prosecuted for all of his crimes against our great country and the Constitution. Then toss him in jail and throw away the key!

      That may be the best way to save our great nation from this marxist delusional narcissist.

    41. Pingback: ADF Alliance Alert » Heritage Foundation: The Obama experts vs. the rule of law

    42. Gayle Kindall 94553 says:

      this should awake people to the fact that this presidnnt's 'appointments' and

      'czars' may be unconstitutional and definetely are sneeky and deceptive.

    43. Charles N., Ohio says:

      Liberals still want to bring up Bush in discussions…well, maybe you still haven't realized it, but he's been out of office for about 20 months now. YOUR guy Obama is there now. We "gave him a chance" like you asked. So he's man enough to take the heat for all his nation-crippling schemes. (Or so I thought.)

      And the HF *has* criticized the Bush Administration on many of its unwise policies; there's a site-wide search engine at the top. Don't be afraid to use it.

    44. Mike Gabel. Westfiel says:

      Well, sure, this must be stopped. We the People intend to do our part in November. Still, please remind me of why we have a senate? Regardless of party affiliation, the conduct, miscounduct and lack of conduct of the elected representatives has been deplorable.

    45. Mike Gabel. Westfiel says:

      And to dany from CA…don't jump the gun…Prop 19 hasn't passed yet.

      Doesn't it seem to make sense that President Bush expanded executive power to protect the interests of the United States? This, unlike Presidente Obama, who expanded executive power for his personal legacy and whim.

      Yes, I believe national security is more important than the progressives' phony argument of "social welfare". If the governemnt wants to best protect We the People, they may do so by adhering to the Costitution, providing for a strong national defense and by supporting a free market system.

    46. Lioness, Wisconsin says:

      Chavez North; `This needs to be front page; dangerous usurpation and abuse of power ! Congress needs to check on the checks and balances!

    47. Herbert Roher says:

      Our Republican form of government has three distinct branches of government; the Executive, the Legislative (HR and Senate), and the Judicial. Since we all agree that the Legislative and Executive branches are subverting the Constitution, why isn't the judicial branch – The Supreme Court – speaking out and advising the other two branches that they are not operating in accordance with the Constitution, the law of our land. The Supreme Court Justices have the right and obligation to tell the rest of government which laws, bills, departments, appointments by the president, regulations, etc. are not legal, and to also publish their findings and judgements for the electorate to know how their representatives in government are failing to protect this nation and our Constitution. If the other two branches of government do not heed the advice of the Supreme Court findings, they must be brought to heel through the Justice Department, impeached, and taken out of office. A knowledgeable electorate will demand this of their elected representatives. If all else fails, then the Declaration of Independence states that the people have the right to change the persons in the governing body who are subverting our form of government and Constitution.

    48. Bill, Kansas City says:

      To subvert the Constitution and disregard the "Checks and Balances" is felonious and I believe treasonous. This president and his goons must be stopped. I hope we can do it through the established system under the Constitution and undo the damage he is doing because if he subverts it enough and we do not have an election as scheduled or there is definite proof of mettling in the election process by the likes of ACORN to keep him there after the next election and the fraud is traced back to him I will do whatever is necessary to preserve the Constitution and restore the nation. I love this country and I will respect the rule of law. Stock up on lead and keep the powder dry…

    49. Sue Marie, Detroit says:


    50. gerald skey, princet says:

      When I was in Law School, I came upon a phrase that I had never heard before – an "enabling statute". Simply stated, an enabling statute merely authorizes the existence of an agency which will then issue "regulations" which, in turn, will have the force of law. There are situations where this approach is required and then, as always, there are abuses because regulations are not subject to the requirements of obtaining the enactment of a statute. What we have seen is an Administration that understands this and the result has been a library full of regulations that noone has voted for but have the force of law. In the end, the voter has no effective way of challenging the regulatory practice and that is Obama's game plan.

    51. Anne Hanson- Sarasot says:

      i realize that even if we carry the house and senate, how do we stop obama fron his "executive" orders to ruin our country? we are scared!!! anne & howard hanson

    52. Dinah Garrison Fairb says:

      This is not a comment; this is a sincere question. How has Obama been able to appoint people like Elizabeth Warren to do jobs the way she described? I really thought we had laws beginning with the basics in the Constitution that covered such issues. I am 63 and all my life I believed that laws were laws and always applied. I knew that in some instances things got bent or broken, but usually only small issues that could pass in cover of darkness because few were involved or interested (although those directly involved were probably plenty interested!). Now major changes are being made that are directly opposed to rule of law and they go unchallenged except by groups who have to organize and pay large amount of money trying to see that our government follows our laws. I am dumbfounded.

    53. Dinah Garrison Fairb says:

      I just read through the comments above and have another question or two. As I remember it, Agnew was not removed from office as it sounds in Ben's comments. He was removed for breaking laws in, I think, New Jersey. And I remember that Nixon left office for the attempted cover-up of the break-in. All these things were horrible and scandalous at the time. However, none of them directly altered the laws of the land. In fact, after much fuss and upheaval, they were dealt with by law. This is just a follow-up of my earlier comment. My son says I am becoming obsessed by rule of law, and maybe I am. But I have always felt that to be the one thing that set us apart from other countries. Even when we (rarely) had such a mess as with Nixon, the law dealt with the problem rather than being the problem.

    54. JMFELS,,NEW JERSEY says:

      They are only experts is deception,,,because of all this scullduggery and backdooring czars or just assoicates who are really in charge..well lets get the rule of law working for us and also the constitution and start proceedings to force him showing his doc's…I am sick and tired of all this lame excuses…Everyone in N.J. still has to show proof of citizenship (legal) in oreder to renew a D.L. even though when the new D.L came out years ago we did show the proof but that dosen't matter they wont beleive us…and he is no better than me……….he has to show or he has to go ..and when he goes he has to take everyone of his croonie appointties and every bill that he signed will be nil and void….God Bless America…..P.S. dont be afraid his bills only hurt this country and the younger ones who will be under the thumb of tyraninical dictatorship…..God Bless America 1776 in 2010

    55. walter roberts, roch says:

      "… preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

      Obama said these words when he took his oath of office. Obviously, he is ignoring rather than preserving the Constitution as he promised. i.e: he lied to us when he spoke his oath. I think that is sufficient cause to accuse him in impeachment.

    56. Spanish Eyes, TX says:

      TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 115 § 2382

      § 2382. Misprision of treason

      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both

      We have various candidate tryable under this law: 1) Obama-UN submission of a US state to human rights commission, he does not represent 49 states, represents 50 and showed no allegiance to Arizona before a world body, invites known terrorist to the White House, gives confort and aid to enemies of the USA constitution, our law of the land, who would revolt against it and establish sharia law, bypass constitutional check and balances, omitting from the republican form of government senate approval of non-elected policymakers to the detriment of our constitutional rights, ei, Holden not defending right to vote harrasment free, Warren giving vague instructions to banking industry predicated upon written and concrete, accurate documentation of rules and regulatio, indebting our nation to the point of national and interrnational weakness …..Please, you can all add to this list, my hands are tiring. We need to seek a voice to SERIOUSLY present a case for impeachment before the senate.

    57. Gilbert Zimmerman, J says:

      "In fact, the entire Progressive Movement is based on discarding the separation of powers at the core of the Constitution in favor of empowering the Administrative State." It would be difficult to emphasize this simple fact of Progressivism too strongly. They do not believe in the rule of law. Rather, the rule of men and women. That, in a nut shell, was the genius of the Obama Moment. Here was a charismatic and eminently electable politician who understood that to move the Progressive Agenda forward it would be necessary to fundamentally trample upon the Constitution. Obama has done this consistently. It is not without merit to conclude that Obama intentionally violated his oath of office; to protect and defend the Constitution. The repudiation of this Progressive Agenda will be manifest on November 2. It will then be incumbent upon us to see to it that the fraud is exposed for what it really and truly is and to repair the damage. This has, quite possibly, been the ultimate "teachable moment" in the history of American Constitutional Democracy.

    58. and2therepublic, ill says:

      Thomas McKean, signer of the Declaration of Independence, President of Congress, ratifier of the U.S. Constitution, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor of Delaware, wrote in the case Respublica v. John Roberts, where John Roberts was sentenced to death after a jury found him guilty of treason. Chief Justice McKean then told him:

      "You will probably have but a short time to live. Before you launch into eternity, it behooves you to improve the time that may be allowed you in this world: it behooves you most seriously to reflect upon your past conduct; to repent of your evil deeds; to be incessant in prayers to the great and merciful God to forgive your manifold transgressions and sins; to teach you to rely upon the merit and passion of a dear Redeemer, and thereby to avoid those regions of sorrow – those doleful shades where peace and rest can never dwell, where even hope cannot enter. It behooves you to seek the [fellowship], advice, and prayers of pious and good men; to be [persistent] at the Throne of Grace, and to learn the way that leadeth to happiness. May you, reflecting upon these things, and pursuing the will of the great Father of light and life, be received into [the] company and society of angels and archangels and the spirits of just men made perfect; and may you be qualified to enter into the joys of Heaven – joys unspeakable and full of glory."

    59. Matt Matuszewski, No says:

      Yes, the abuses fostered by this administration must be stopped (hopefully by ridding congress of the anticonstitutionalist Democrats that now preside there), but that is not enough. Measures must be taken, by a new healthy congress, to ensure that the means for all such abuses can never be implemented again.

    60. Cordova, TN says:

      As part of our home school studies, I agreed to teach my daughter American History. Interestlingly, we are just now discussing the time the Constitution was written. I encourage everyone to read about the debates between Jefferson and Hamilton where you will see the stark differences between their concepts of government. It will also become very clear that the extreme implemintation of Hamilton's ideas has become manifest in Obama. Jefferson would be totally vindicated by the President's actions.

    61. Vince says:

      If these actions are unconstitutional, why isn't he impeached?

    62. Vince, Michigan says:

      If these actions are unconstitututional, why isn't he impeached?

    63. Linda, Louisiana says:

      I apologize for the late comment. A question I have is can Obama be impeached for failing to enforce a law; i.e. The existing Immigration Law.

      Impeachment is our only solution before the next Presidential election. Even if the Republicans take over the Senate and maybe the House, Obama will use whatever means he can think up to evade the laws, such as in the case you alluded to in this article.

    64. Jean says:

      The Congress needs to SERIOUSLY start the process to Impeach Obama, Pelosi, Reid and All their cronies NOW!!!!!!

      I've listened to Lyndon LaRouche's reports. Larouche's reports state that there is someone in the Congress that has invoked the 25th Amendment, Clause #4 to start the process of impeaching Obama and his whole administration.

      LaRouche has stated that after they get Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc… OUT of office and investigate all of them for what crimes they committed to the end result of prosecution of prison time. The Congress needs to re-instate the 1933 version of the Glass-Steagell act immediately to help get our economy back on track where it belongs. The Glass-Steagel Act brought our great nation back on track from the Great Depression and the Glass Steagel Act will help our country again. LaRouche makes sense of what he says. I'm just looking each day in the news for when Impeachment proceedings really do start!! We gotta get Obama and his whole administration OUT of the White House!!!!

    65. Jenny, North Carolin says:

      We need to impeach Mr. Obama. Why is there not an outcry across the nation, and from Congress to impeach him before he completely destroys our country?

      Read, "The Roots of Obama's Rage" by Dinesh D'Souza, Mr. D'Souza is president of Kings College. This book is a must read for all Americans! This book really tells Obama's real agenda from Mr. Obama's own words.

    66. Pingback: Top 10 Government Regulatory Abuses of 2010

    67. Pingback: A Year of Regulatory Abuse: The 10 Worst New Rules of 2010 | Step Down Obama

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.