Obama's Actions: Federal Law Violation?

In 2018, a blog post on Universal News Portal claimed that former President Barack Obama had broken federal law in [an] attempt to take over [the] presidency from Trump. However, this was deemed to be a hoax, with no evidence found to support the claim.

In 2012, a hearing was held by the House Judiciary Committee to discuss the Obama Administration's alleged abuse of power. The hearing covered topics such as the Administration's handling of the Fast and Furious scandal, the President's recess appointments, and the contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

In 2020, an opinion piece in The Hill accused Obama of hypocrisy regarding his stance on the rule of law. The piece referenced Obama's handling of the CIA's torture program, his ordering of military action against Libya, and his constitutional overreach on immigration.

Obama's alleged violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act by ordering military action against Libya

In 2011, the Obama administration faced scrutiny for its military operations in Libya, sparking debate about whether the intervention violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act. The War Powers Resolution, enacted during the Nixon era, mandates that the President obtain Congressional authorization for military action within 60 days or begin withdrawing forces. However, the Obama administration argued that prior congressional approval was not constitutionally required for the limited operations in Libya.

In his defence, President Obama asserted that he acted pursuant to a request from the Arab League and authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The administration's submission to Congress on June 15, 2011, reinforced this stance, claiming that the President had a "mandate from the United Nations." This justification was one of four claims put forth by the administration, including the notion that the President could obtain "authorization" from the U.N. Security Council instead of Congress.

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) advised that the use of force in Libya was justified because President Obama could reasonably determine that it was in the national interest. Additionally, the OLC memo referenced the "destruction of Libyan military assets," suggesting that the operations were limited in scope. However, the House rejected Joint Resolution 68 on June 24, which would have provided the Obama administration with authorization to continue military operations in Libya for up to one year.

The Obama administration's interpretation of the word "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution was questioned by the Committee. Harold Hongju Koh, a lawyer for the State Department, argued that the term "hostilities" was left to the interpretation of the executive branch and that it had historically been used to describe limited military action in support of a larger conflict. Despite these justifications, the Committee remained concerned about the President's actions.

Obama's alleged violation of the Constitution's separation of powers by unilaterally granting amnesty to illegal immigrants

In June 2012, Barack Obama announced his intention to grant amnesty to an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants. This was not done through an executive order, but through the implementation of a series of DHS memos. This action has been deemed by some as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and, therefore, not legally valid.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The Congress shall have the Power to... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." According to House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter, Obama's action is a clear breach of the President's Oath of Office, which requires the President to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Carter argues that Obama's amnesty plan sets a dangerous precedent, as it allows the President to ignore any law they choose.

In response to the announcement, Carter stated: "The American people need to be very aware of what Obama has set in motion. If this is allowed to stand, any President can ignore any law they choose in the future." He also suggested that Obama's motivation behind the announcement was political deception, aiming to divert attention from the failure of his economic policies and continued high unemployment.

It is important to note that others have argued that Obama's actions are within the President's constitutional authority. The White House stated that Obama has the legal authority to take unilateral action on immigration based on the precedent set by past presidents. For example, in 1961, President John F. Kennedy used Executive Action to delay the deportation of Cuban refugees seeking political asylum during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Similar actions were taken by Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton in response to various refugee crises.

However, critics argue that Obama's use of Executive Action is different from these past examples because it is not within the legal authority of the Oval Office, it is not the result of an emergency circumstance, and it is designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and immigration laws rather than address a real refugee crisis. They claim that Obama's action is an attempt to grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the U.S. by fraudulently declaring them "refugees." This, they argue, is an overt act of usurping the U.S. Constitution and may rise to the level of an impeachable offense or even treason.

Obama's alleged violation of the Constitution's separation of powers by issuing an executive order providing that illegal immigrants may apply for work permits

While former US President Barack Obama has been accused of breaking federal laws, these claims are largely unfounded and have been debunked. One such accusation is that Obama violated the Constitution's separation of powers by issuing an executive order that allowed illegal immigrants to apply for work permits.

On November 20, 2014, Obama announced a series of executive actions on immigration that would affect around five million undocumented immigrants. These actions aimed to secure the border, hold undocumented immigrants accountable, and ensure everyone followed the same rules. The actions included increasing border security, prioritising the deportation of felons over families, and requiring certain undocumented immigrants to pass criminal background checks and pay taxes as they registered to stay in the US temporarily without fear of deportation.

Obama's actions were within his legal authority as president, and he was following in the footsteps of previous presidents, both Democratic and Republican, who had also used executive actions on immigration. The announcement stated that Obama's actions were common sense steps, but only Congress could finish the job with a comprehensive, bipartisan bill. The actions were intended to be a temporary solution until Congress could pass more permanent legislation.

Critics may argue that Obama's executive actions on immigration overstepped his authority and violated the Constitution's separation of powers. However, it's important to note that the president does have constitutional powers to grant executive clemency and issue pardons, commutations, and reprieves. Obama's actions on immigration were an attempt to fix a broken immigration system and ensure that limited enforcement resources were used effectively.

Obama's alleged violation of the Constitution's separation of powers by making recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board

In 2012, President Barack Obama made several appointments during an intrasession Congressional recess. Obama named three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and appointed the director of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The appointments were made during a recess punctuated by twice-weekly "pro forma" sessions of the Senate.

The appointments caused an uproar, with Republicans arguing that Obama had undercut the Senate's power to confirm nominees. Although most senators were out of town, the Senate had not formally adjourned and was still holding pro forma sessions every three days. This technique had been developed by Senator Harry Reid to thwart Bush-era recess appointments.

The appointments were challenged in court, with a federal appeals court ruling that Obama had violated the Constitution. The court found that the Senate was not truly in recess for the purpose of a recess appointment, and that the appointments were made while the Senate was in session but on a break. The ruling stated that recess appointments could only be made when vacancies arose during a recess, and only when the Senate was in an official recess between sessions, not during breaks while it was still technically in session.

The decision had significant implications for presidential power, limiting the ability of presidents to push through federal nominees without Senate confirmation. It also impacted the NLRB and CFPB, casting doubt on the ability of the NLRB to conduct business and the legality of the CFPB director's appointment.

The Obama administration considered the ruling "novel and unprecedented," contradicting 150 years of practice. They planned to appeal, and the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court.

Obama's alleged violation of the Constitution's separation of powers by asserting executive privilege in response to a legitimate congressional inquiry related to Operation Fast and Furious

Executive privilege is a legal doctrine that allows presidents to defy requests by members of the legislative and judicial branches for information the administration deems sensitive. The privilege ensures that the president receives candid advice from aides without fear of intrusion by Congress or the courts.

In June 2012, President Obama invoked executive privilege over documents related to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. The Committee had subpoenaed all ATF and Justice Department communications and documents referring or related to Operation Fast and Furious. The Justice Department released about 7,600 pages of documents but did not turn over records relating to the agency's response to the fallout of the operation.

The Obama administration's assertion of executive privilege was controversial because the deliberative process privilege, a type of executive privilege, does not apply when there is reason to believe that government misconduct has occurred. In this case, the government misconduct in question was misleading Congress in a February 2011 letter that asserted that the Administration did not allow gun walking.

The Obama administration's claim of executive privilege was also controversial because neither the President nor his immediate advisors were involved in the decision-making process, which directly undermines the claim that the presidential communications privilege applies.

Frequently asked questions