Obama's Legacy: Lawbreaker Or Law-Abiding Citizen?

There are varying opinions on whether Barack Obama broke a lot of laws during his presidency. Some sources claim that Obama broke the law on 78 occasions, including by supporting warrantless wiretapping, lying about the Benghazi attack, and illegally targeting conservative groups through the IRS. Obama has also been accused of violating the Constitution and the War Powers Act by ordering military action against Libya without congressional consultation. Additionally, Obama's amnesty program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Records (DAPA), has been seen as a breach of his constitutional duty to execute laws faithfully. However, others argue that disputes over executive discretion and the number of executive orders issued are not sufficient grounds for accusing Obama of lawlessness.

Obama's 'rule of law' hypocrisy

Obama's rule of law hypocrisy

Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, has been accused of hypocrisy when it comes to his stance on the "rule of law". Obama has been criticised for his failure to uphold certain laws and for his administration's involvement in various scandals, which have led to questions about his commitment to the rule of law.

One notable example is the controversy surrounding the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programme. Obama unilaterally suspended federal immigration law for over 4 million undocumented immigrants, granting them "lawful presence", work authorisation, and access to government benefits. This action has been interpreted as a violation of the Constitution and an overstepping of executive power, as it usurped Congress's authority to regulate immigration.

Obama has also been accused of constitutional violations, such as his support for warrantless wiretapping, ignoring constitutional requirements for appointees, and lying about the Benghazi attack. Additionally, there are allegations that his administration illegally targeted conservative groups through the IRS and secretly obtained phone records from Associated Press journalists.

Furthermore, Obama's response to the CIA's torture program during his administration has been criticised. While he admitted that "we tortured some folks", he encouraged Americans to "look forwards, not backwards", resulting in no CIA employees being fired or held accountable for their involvement in the program.

Additionally, Obama's decision to order military action against Libya in 2011 has been described as a potential violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act, as it was done without congressional consultation or authorisation.

In conclusion, while Obama campaigned on a platform of upholding the rule of law and protecting constitutional liberties, his actions as president have often fallen short of these ideals. His administration was marred by scandals and instances of executive overreach, leading to accusations of hypocrisy and contributing to the erosion of trust in the American political system.

Obama's constitutional overreach on immigration

The Obama administration's immigration policies have been a subject of much debate. Some have argued that President Obama's immigration policies were unconstitutional and amounted to executive overreach. Others have defended the policies as being within the President's constitutional powers.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which was established by the Obama administration in 2012, has been a particular point of contention. DACA provided temporary protection from deportation and work permits to certain undocumented immigrants who entered the US as children. The program was challenged in the courts, and in 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue, effectively vitiating the executive order.

Critics of DACA have argued that the program amounted to an unconstitutional exercise of executive power by the President. They claim that President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by creating a new class of immigrants eligible for benefits and effectively rewriting immigration law.

Proponents of DACA, on the other hand, argue that the program was a lawful exercise of the President's prosecutorial discretion. They contend that the President has broad discretion in enforcing immigration laws and that DACA fell within the scope of this discretion. They also point to historical precedent, noting that previous administrations have used similar measures to provide relief to certain groups of immigrants.

The debate over DACA and, more broadly, the Obama administration's immigration policies, highlights the complex and contentious nature of immigration policy in the US. It also underscores the ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches of government over the proper role of each in shaping immigration policy.

Obama's amnesty program, DAPA

On November 20, 2014, President Barack Obama announced Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), a planned United States immigration policy. The policy was designed to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who had resided in the United States since 2010 and had children who were either citizens or lawful permanent residents.

DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress. The program would have provided eligible individuals with a three-year renewable employment authorization document and exemption from deportation. However, it was never implemented due to legal challenges.

On December 3, 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that DAPA violated the Constitution and federal statutes. A preliminary injunction was issued on February 16, 2015, blocking the program from taking effect while the lawsuit proceeded. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which announced a 4-4 deadlock decision on June 23, 2016, effectively leaving the block on DAPA in place.

The legal challenges to DAPA centred around the argument that the program violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and that the Immigration and Nationality Act did not permit deferred action. The Obama administration defended the program's constitutionality, drawing comparisons to President George H. W. Bush's 1990 "Family Fairness" program.

The failure to implement DAPA had significant implications for undocumented individuals and their families. It is estimated that DAPA could have potentially delayed the deportation of about half of the 11 million undocumented people in the United States. Additionally, more than 10 million people resided in households with at least one adult who would have been eligible for the program.

Obama's alleged lawlessness

There have been several accusations of lawlessness levelled against former US President Barack Obama. One notable allegation involves Obama's amnesty programme, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Critics argue that through DAPA, Obama unilaterally suspended federal immigration law, granting "lawful presence" and work authorisation to over 4 million undocumented immigrants. This action, they claim, usurped Congress's authority to regulate immigration and violated his constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

Another instance of alleged lawlessness by Obama relates to his use of executive power. The House Republicans, led by Speaker John A. Boehner, accused Obama of failing to faithfully execute the law as mandated by the Constitution. They authorised lawsuits against the President, claiming that he acted inconsistently with his constitutional duties. However, it is important to note that the dispute centred on the legitimate use of executive discretion, and the number of executive orders issued by Obama was deemed less relevant in this context.

Obama has also been accused of violating the Constitution and the War Powers Act by ordering military action against Libya in 2011 without prior congressional consultation or authorisation. Additionally, there are claims that he supported unconditional, warrantless wiretapping and ignored constitutional requirements for appointees.

Furthermore, Obama's meeting with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak sparked controversy, with some suggesting that he may have violated the Logan Act. The Logan Act is a federal law prohibiting Americans from engaging with foreign governments or leaders without the consent of the US government. However, it is unlikely that this legislation would be applied to Obama in this circumstance.

It is worth noting that the accusations against Obama have been politically charged, and the validity of these claims has been disputed.

Obama's breach of The Logan Act

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that criminalizes the negotiation of a dispute between the United States and a foreign government by an unauthorized American citizen. The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799.

In March 2024, former US President Barack Obama paid a 'courtesy' visit to 10 Downing Street to meet with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Obama, who served as president from 2009 to 2017, arrived in the UK to discuss the work of the Obama Foundation, his non-profit organisation, with Sunak. They spoke about a range of topics, including artificial intelligence, over cups of tea.

It is suspected that Obama did not receive formal consent from the US government to meet Prime Minister Sunak, which would be a breach of The Logan Act. As Obama is not part of the Biden administration, it is difficult to imagine anything more than an informal talk over a cup of English tea. However, Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters raised questions over his 'undisclosed private meeting' with Sunak and even accused him of violating the Act.

The Logan Act is named after George Logan, a Pennsylvania state politician and pacifist who had unauthorised discussions with France during the period of quasi-war between the US and France. The Act has been invoked rarely: there are only two known instances in which individuals have been indicted for violating the Act, and neither indictment resulted in a conviction.

The Act states that:

> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

It is highly unlikely that the government would attempt to apply the legislation to Obama in this circumstance.

Frequently asked questions