Obama unilaterally declares yet another portion of a law void, dares Congress to do anything about it
Afterwards, he offered reporters a chance to ask him questions. Jackie Calmes of the NY Times asked about Obama's unilateral declaration delaying the starting date of "employer mandate" part of the Obamacare law for a year.
Here's Calmes' question: “People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally — to delay the employer mandate. Did you consult with your lawyer?”
Here's the Lightworker's reply:
Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security.
But where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.
So is that a "no"? Of course. But to say that directly would spotlight his imperial style ("you will do as I decree"), so he throws in a cloud of bullshit to distract listeners from realizing that he didn't want to give a straight answer.
And it gets better: He went on to say that if Congress didn’t like his unilateral rewriting of the law it passed, they could try to do something about it. Complaints that the Constitution didn't permit him to rewrite laws didn't bother him: “I’m not concerned about their opinions,” he said. “Very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.”
If you're a quick study you probably found that last statement too astonishingly arrogant to possibly have been uttered by a savvy president. Fair enough. Here's his full statement:
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.One hardly knows where to start. For example, consider his repeated use of the phrase "usurp my authority." The phrase makes no sense: One usurps someone else's authority or power, not your own. It sounds as if he doesn't know what the word means.
And to say "very few" members of congress are lawyers? Dude, 60% of all U.S. senators are lawyers. If you want to say you just meant members of the House ("congress" being used to refer to either the House or to both wings of the legislature), it's a mere 170 members. And you call that "very few"? You're either a bluffer or ignorant of the facts.
Sounds like you just pulled this out of your ass, hoping no one would check your assertion. As you've done your whole life: Bluff, and count on the fact that because you were so well-spoken and sounded so sure of yourself, everyone would believe your bullshit.
Oh, and that clever little addendum, "...much less constitutional lawyers." You seem to be implying that you know more about the Constitution than the average law school grad. (And yes, I realize you lectured on the topic at Chicago U.) But for someone who implies that he has unusual knowledge about our founding document--once said to be "the supreme law of the land"--you seem to ignore it when it suits you.
Specifically, Article 2 section 3: "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Explain the meaning of that phrase to us, Barry.