Obama Lies About Constitution — Again!

PIECES OF THE PUZZLE: Subverting The Constitution


How Control Of Education And The Media Allow Obama To Lie About Meaning Of Constitution


This story is a clear example of how an ignorant population works to the benefit of the ruling elite:


Obama Says GOP Debt Ceiling Demands Are an Assault on U.S. ‘Constitutional Structure’


“If we continue to set a precedent in which a president … is in a situation in which each time the United States is called upon to pay its bills, the other party can simply sit there and say, ‘Well, we’re not going to put – pay the bills unless you give us … what we want,’ that changes the constitutional structure of this government entirely,” Obama said.


I am not going to mix words here: President Obama is lying about the Constitution.  Normally, logic and decency would dictate that I allow for the possibility that Obama is just mistaken.  However, in this case, Obama and his spokespersons have told us he is a ‘Constitutional scholar’ who has taught the Constitution.  Therefore, I must assume he knows better.  This leaves one option: he is lying to the American people.

Read the rest…

53 thoughts on “Obama Lies About Constitution — Again!

  1. Obama is not lying about this. After the legislative branch passes its laws, the executive branch is given the constitutional mandate to execute them. What we have right now is a legislative branch that passes laws then doesn’t want to pay for them, which infringes on the executive’s ability to execute. If Congress has passed laws that say there shall be welfare under such and such conditions, then it’s up to Congress to fund welfare under those conditions. If you don’t want to spend money on welfare, you first need to change or get rid of the welfare law. Until then, Obama is right to say that the legislative branch is infringing on his constitutional obligation to make sure the laws are faithfully executed. We have an ignorant bunch of Tea Party Republicans who love to hear themselves talk about the Constitution, but don’t even understand how it works.

    • Henry,

      I’m sorry, but this is not what Obama is claiming. He is claiming that Congress is harming the power of the Executive. They are doing no such thing. If Congress fails to do its job, that is on Congress. The President has NO authority to do anything about it. The American people have to do that — just as they have to correct the mistakes of the President when Congress refuses to impeach him.

      On top of this, Obama has shown that he doesn’t care to execute the laws. Look how he picks and chooses which law he will enforce and you will find the proof of this. Then there is the matter of EXECUTIVE dictated spending in the form of executive orders and regulation. So that alone would negate any excuse Obama might try to make along the lines of your reasoning.

      In truth, the bulk of our govt. has become dysfunctional — precisely because they no longer stick tot he Constitution. But Obama is lying about what he is claiming here. It is that simple.

      • The Affordable Care Act was not dictated by the executive. It wasn’t passed by executive order. It was passed by Congress. Now that the law is being implemented it becomes the job of the executive to make sure that the law is faithfully executed. But how can he execute and implement the law if Congress, after itself passing the law, now says it will not fund it? That’s a recipe for disaster. It’s sabotage. You’re basically saying that Congress can pass a law enforcing, say, border security, then not fund it, then blame the president for not enforcing the law, and that’s fine with you. As for the president picking and choosing which laws to enforce, you have to be more specific. But as I remember Bush did exactly what you are accusing Obama of.

        • If Congress decides NOT to fund something, THEY HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO THAT! It is perfectly within their rights to do so. Read the actual Constitution.

          As for “getting more specific:” Why? You just gave two perfect examples — Obamacare and the border (not to mention immigration law).

          I’m sorry, Henry, but you are on fallacious ground. You haven’t even come close to making your case. In fact, you undermined it, yourself.

        • Henry,

          Tell me, if Congress had passed a law and Bush had then said he need $1 gazooglebilliontrillionmillion to execute it and, if Congress didn’t give it to him, then they are subverting the Constitution, would you accept that assertion?

          I bet you’ll say no. You should say no, because this would hand the President an open checkbook, which the Constitution does NOT give to the Executive. Hence, your argument is undermined and — as I originally stated — Obama is lying.

          Sometimes it helps to illustrated absurdity with absurdity 😀

    • Henry,
      Have you ever read the Constitution adopted in 1789? It appears you have not. Or you do not understand the written English word. So I’ll give you a little homework.

      The legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch were explicitly given separate duties and powers.

      Purposely. Why? So there must be majority agreement between all 3 branches, AND our Constitution of 1789 and The Declaration of Independence. Any disagreement? ACTION PREVENTED, SUBDUED, STOPPED. Tyranny restrained and liberty protected, not only for the current generation, but all future generations.

      Congress cannot legally, in other words, “Constitutionally”, pass an “entitlement” without an Article V Constitutional Amendment. Congress cannot create “a power” with a mere Congressional Act which was not given to the federal government by the People through the written Constitution.

      No President, including Obama, can legally exceed his Constitutionally given powers as contained in Article 2 of our Constitution, or legally transgress the words of The Constitution. When ANY President violates the Constitution, it is Congress’ duty to impeach, try, and remove from office the person who knowingly violates his oath and duty to uphold our Constitution. Additionally, if Obama is in fact a “scholar” on the Constitution, he has a higher duty of care to “the People” of the United States, and thereby the “finders of fact” have a lower burden to show Obama does in fact, KNOW he breaks “the Law” of the United States and “the People”.

      Here is an easy place for you to start, if you in fact seek the truth.




  2. Here’s where I win the argument: the House is bound by the law itself, which mandates that it must get funded. It is mandatory spending, just like Medicare and Social Security.

    • Sorry, Henry, but you haven’t ‘won’ anything. The House is NOT bound by the law. This is the fallacy of the whole entitlement mentality. One Congress is NEVER bound by the previous Congress. Read the founders, my friend 🙂

      The plain text of the Constitution defeats you, and Obama. Now, unless you are a “Constitutional Scholar,” then I will allow that you just do not understand this. But Obama doesn’t get such a pass. hence, he is lying.

        • ALL spending bills will originate in the House. I mean, hey, if that doesn’t give the power to spend to the people side of Congress — which is elected every 2 years — then where does that power rest? It further restricts what Congress CAN spend on by the enumerated powers. BTW: Healthcare/welfare is not among them.

          Sorry, Henry, but I suspect you are in need of a refresher reading of the Constitution. 🙂

      • “One Congress is NEVER bound by the previous Congress.” Of course, the next Congress can change the law. But it hasn’t. It can’t since the Senate is still controlled by Democrats.

        • It does not have to change the law. In the case of a law such as Obamacare, it can simply de-fund it — just as the Left threatened to do to Bush over Iraq. History is against you, Henry — as is the Constitution 🙂

          • “it can simply de-fund it — just as the Left threatened to do to Bush over Iraq.” <<<Wrong. Defense spending is not mandatory spending, which is why the sequester cuts, which only hit discretionary spending, is not being spared. The Affordable Care Act is not discretionary spending; it is mandatory spending like Medicare and Social Security. If you could just defund Medicare and Social Security, Republicans would have done it long ago. In order to do that, you have to change or repeal the law.

            • WRONG! Defense spending IS mandatory as it is among the enumerated powers. Now, what is spent and where is open, but that the govt. will spend to defend is not.

              Spending on welfare is unconstitutional in ALL forms, and even then, entitlements are NOT mandatory. They can be de-funded, which is what “mediare cuts” and “social security cuts” are all about. NO ENTITLEMENT IS MANDATORY! It has just been treated as such by people who disobey, violate, and subvert the Constitution — like Obama…and you! 😉

            • Republicans, Henry? Why would the Republican Party do such a stupid thing? It is run by right-wing Progressives, not “conservatives.” Do you even understand that this does not mean “conservative” Progressives, but Fascists?

              Seriously, do you understand the dynamics here? Or do you care? Because, honestly, you seem to have one concern: big govt. over the rule of law and Constitution. You cloak your position in the rule of law, but you argue against it. And that is why I am not sure you actually understand the issues we’re debating.

    • The insulting part in this exchange is that Obama/Henry represent a very real attempt to subvert the Constitution while trying to paint their opponents as the guilty party. The founders built in many checks and balances, specifically so the sort of thing Obama is trying to do could be opposed by a minority faction. The claim that, once passed, the next Congress MUST funbd soemthing is fallacious as it assumes a past COngress can hold the present Congress hostage. This is simply not the case. By funding something every year, the present Congress gives consent to the past Congresses. HOWEVER, if they do NOT give consent, the Constitution allows the current Congress to over-ride the past by de-funding a law. To claim Congress does not have this authority is to claim the power to amend the Constitution without due process, and THAT is a subversion of the Constitution. Obama knows this, hence he is lying.

      • Basically you’re saying that Congress is above the law. As this plays out, you will find that House Republicans won’t be able to defund the Affordable Care Act. What they might be able to do is not raise the debt ceiling. But that is equivalent to not paying your credit card bill. When markets begin to roil, when America’s credit rating is shot to hell, we’ll see who the public blames for that all-but-treasonous action. Good luck.

        • No, you are trying to hold to a Progressive-created and false understanding of the Constitution. If a law is connected to spending, it is re-affirmed YEARLY! This is what the whole budget process is all about. This gives EVERY Congress an opportunity to de-fund those programs. And that is what we are really speaking about — a SPENDING PROGRAM, not a law. The law you and Obama are pointing to merely tells the govt. how the spending is to be done. It does not mandate that the spending take place. It cannot do that without dictating to every future Congress, which the Constitution does not allow.

          As for America’s credit rating being shot to hell, that was done a long time ago. You can threaten the market and our economy all you want, but it is already ruined. You just don’t see it yet because they are still printing money. When that stops, you’ll see. Oh, and Obamacare is not about healthcare, it is about CONTROL and BANKRUPTCY (of America). Obama is among those who think destroying America will present him with an opportunity to remake it. He and Biden have said so — IF you know their language, that is. I do.

        • Henry,
          You are saying the President is above “the law = the Constitution.

          Yes, the obamacare bill, which originated in the Senate, in violation of the Constitution, and which was “deemed passed” by the House by Pelosi, and which was “passed so that “we” could see what was in it”, and is consistently violated by executive order by the President by granting illegal “exemptions” to his supporters and friends….

          Do I really need to go on and on and on and on?

          Progressives, Communists, Democrats . . . have nothing but contempt for Americans.

            • Joe: The 17th and 18th Amendments represented the first high water mark in the history of Progressivism in America. The establishment of a permanent Federal tax on incomes, in clear contravention of the “Takings Clause” of the Constitution itself, established a revenue stream that allowed the Feds to encroach on America’s existing social safety net of families, churches and fraternal organizations that set the US apart from the rising Socialist states of Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe). It also allowed the Lib/Progs to begin building a mass of government-dependent people to counteract the traditional American values of independence, hard work, personal responsibility, individual freedom and mutual support, a long-term Progressive goal that Our Dear Leader continues to chase today. Prohibition was about the Progressives’ need to control the lives of other citizens. America, always having been a free society, had allowed individual states to handle alcohol consumption as fit their citizenry. And alcohol consumption in early America was much higher per capita than it is today. We libertarians have long known that if today the Progressives come for our booze, next year it will be our weapons and then our children. The key is to prevent the Progressive bosses from exercising government’s coercive power to control the lives of America’s citizens in any way. When individual liberty is involved, it is far better to fight and win the early battles than to try to recover lost freedoms. This concept is critical under our Liberal/Progressive monomaniacal President. The constant encroachment on our Constitutionally protected rights must be resisted by our legislators and the American people. There are no viable alternatives. CDE

              • Charles,

                Good comment…. but the 16th was the Income Tax Amendmet and the 17th Changed the Senate from being elected by the States to one of Popular Vote thus eroding the States rights and power. The 18th was the Prohibition Amendment.

                I agree wholeheartedly with your Statement thus… “When individual liberty is involved, it is far better to fight and win the early battles than to try to recover lost freedoms. ”

                This why we have to reject Conservatives when they say …”just let ObamaCare go forward….it will collapse on its own”……No ! It will not ! The Gov’t will just take more to prop it up………Or when people say …..”Just give the Democrats wjat they want….it will all collapse and then we can ( cough-cough) “rebuild”……..

                These are the statements of the weak …….they are idiotic…….where has Socialism / Communism EVER been defeated by its own failures without outside intervention ! Even in Russia it took 70 YEARS to have any modicum of sanity return…..because of Pressure from the West. And in North Korea…..it just gets worse every year even though it is a failed system.

                So I agree 100 % with your comment…….Fight….Win early Battles…..better than Trying to recover lost Freedoms !

                And with respect to the Prog a’comin for our Hootch…… I’ll raise a Balvenie to you…. :- )).

      • Joe: You are absolutely correct that no current or past Congress has the power to bind a future Congress to a specific action vis a vis funding of programs. This is why Obama’s strategy of kicking the National Debt can down the road amounts to introducing uncertainty into the mix. A future Congress could elect to deny funding for debt service, although that would blow-up the world as we know it. By the way, the same restriction applies to corporate boards, and the boards of privately held companies. Our Dear Leader, who represents himself as a scholar of Constitutional Law, appears to have missed a few classes while he was chasing around his male Assistant Editors at the Harvard Law Review, another sealed Obama adventure that cost the Law School hundreds of thousands to settle. Either King Barack doesn’t know what is actually in the US Constitution, or he is choosing to follow a pattern of prevarication by lying to American people. Neither alternative would be a surprise, as we have come to expect Himself to cook the truth a wee bit and his media publicists to cover-up his gaffes. CDE

        • CDE,

          Thanks. Also, I didn’t know about Obama’s dallying at law school. However, as you will note in my original post, I preclude the possibility of Obama NOT knowing he is lying — specifically because he has pointed to himself as being a constitutional expert. To me, no benefit of the doubt is warranted after someone does something like that. We should just assume, if he gets it wrong and it is this clear he is wrong, then he is intentionally lying. Add tot hat his record of lying — as you point out — and a REASONABLE person would be prudent to count this lie and not “miss-speak.” 🙂

          • Joe: Although no one I know of has ever seen any of Barack’s or Michelle’s academic transcripts, it was a very big deal when he was elected President of the Harvard Law Revue. Barack was actually awarded a grant to permit him to publish a substantive monograph on some substantive technical aspect of the law, but instead he (or Bill Ayres) eventually brought out the first of his two (so far) autobiographies, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, a lightweight puff piece that concealed things like Frank Marshall Davis’s full name and Communist Party membership and Barack Obama Senior’s alcoholism and chronic philandering. BHO never, that’s right NEVER, published an HLR article during his term as President, but he did get named in sexual harassment actions brought by three male Assistant Editors on the Review. The Law School immediately hushed up the suits and settled for several hundred thousand dollars, with secrecy covenants being part of all three settlements. One or two of the recipients of the settlements have spoken on background and not-for-attribution about the cases, which is where I heard about the incidents, but none has been willing to go on-camera due to the potential damages they could incur for breaking the secrecy covenants. I suspect it would also not be a sound career move for a lawyer to rat-out the President of the United States. Interestingly, the same networks who tried to dredge up President Bush’s National Guard service record and admitted alcoholism have wanted nothing to do with this story, or with the claims made within Chicago’s homosexual community that Obama is one of their own. Many, many sealed files and dead-ends with Our Dear Leader. Unfortunate for the nation. CDE

            • CDE,

              I think they have to keep his past secret because, if it were known, he WOULD be impeached — and EVERYTHING he has signed into law nullified as not legal because the man was never eligible to be President.

              NOTE: I did NOT say he was not born in the U.S., or even that he is not a U.S. citizen, but I AM saying I think he has REAL legal issues that would prevent him from being LEGALLY elected. 😉

            • Wren’t there some unfortunate “accidents” among the Chi-town Fay set ??

              Accidents to young men-folk within the O-man’s intimate Cricle ??

              • Don: The Obamas’ exploits as charter members of Reverend Wright’s “Down Low Club” may have a basis in fact, but its difficult to know for sure because so many people really despise them that credibility is an issue for the sources. The Obamas have left a Clintonesque trail of dead bodies in Chicago, including the still mysterious death of the homosexual choir director at Wright’s church, and the “Gay” bath house where Obama is alleged to have been a regular member is a real place. “Man’s World” looks like one of the old Times Square dives from the ’70s, but I would suspect his membership and visits would have been purged and buried a long time ago, if they actually took place. The Harvard Law incidents look fairly solid, but the accusers won’t ever talk on the record and the American media won’t touch the story, even to investigate. That story does give some credibility to the Chicago rumors, though, and the clearest connection is the way Obama tries to shoot a basketball. I was a guard in the Philadelphia Public League as a kid (OK, I was White, but I could play) and learned to play in the schoolyards and playgrounds, hustling Black adults one-on-one for a dollar a point. I would be embarrassed to block his shot, that’s how pathetic he looks. BHO claims to have been an actual basketball player? He shoots like a wimpy suburban White guy who learned to shoot on the hoop in his parents’ driveway. I don’t care if he’s Bi, I’d like to see him prove he’s Black, And yes, his close friend, Reggie Love, often accompanies Barack when Michelle is “busy,” including some romantic walks on the beach during BHO’s Florida vacation last year when he golfed with Tiger. I would really like to find one thing that is actually true and/honest about either of the Obamas…still looking. CDE

        • “Obama’s strategy of kicking the National Debt can down the road” Ha, what a false statement that is! Republicans have repeatedly refused to accept a Grand Bargain with $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years. And what excuse do they give? They won’t accept a deal where any of the budget cuts occur in the future. But no budget deal can EVER do anything about the debt unless it is a long-term solution that extends *at least* 10-20 years into the future. Meanwhile, the deficit has already been cut in half under this President, and it began falling even BEFORE sequestration. Moreover, a huge part of why spending increased so much was because of the laws and policies left over by the Bush administration. You Republicans started two wars WITHOUT EVER PAYING FOR THEM. Instead, you put it all on the national credit card. In fact, far from paying for the wars Republicans CUT TAXES. Government revenues sank! The Republican way: spend more, tax less. Not to mention Bush left an economy in shambles. It was bleeding jobs and causing the government to spend more and more as unemployed people sapped government benefits. Meanwhile, the private sector was spending less and less. Can you imagine what would have happened to an economy where not only the private sector pulled out but also the public sector? The Great Recession Republicans left behind would have turned into the Second Great Depression. And yet you talk.

          • CDE,

            This guy is just another Party-first, damned the country type of Lefty. He does not have a concern for the rule of law — unless it can be twisted to suit his political purposes.

          • OH henry ?!?

            Let’s see, all the Presidents racked up $ 6 Trillion. Obama and co-conspirators have racked up over $6 trillion in 4 years.

            4 years to do what took 43 other Presidents and over 200 years to do.

            No worries, your US $ are being devalued just as are all the US $ owned by everyone else too…

    • Here is where you Lose the Argument ….. since “the Law” seems to be the post you hide behind.

      The Executive has no authority to Change “The Law” arbitrarily ………. Obama has Amended or Delayed ObamaCare 19 Times !!!………………..there is no Constitutional authority for him to do that.

      Justice Roberts CHANGED the law sent for consideration by calling the Penaties and mandates a TAX …… also he/ They have no authority to Change a Law passed in Congress ( which SPECIFICALLY said there was no tax associated with ObamaCare )……….. thus the ObamaCare that came out of the June SC meeting WAS NOT the ObamaCare that was passed.

      So according to “The Law”…….. Obamacare as it is now being forced on the American People isn’t even the Law passed in Congress and is thus itself Illegal.

      • The law was always written to be implemented through the tax code. The important part of the ruling was that states don’t have to accept the medicaid portion, which is hurting implementation, giving Republicans a chance to jeer at the law. But the real problem here is that you don’t understand the U.S. Constitution. You get as far as the enumeration of powers in Article I Section 8, which CONTINUES: “–And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, AND ALL OTHER POWERS vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” As Alexander Hamilton explained in his “Report on a National Bank,” the “necessary and proper” clause gives the federal government IMPLIED POWERS (his term). That is what you originalists and strict constructionists have ALWAYS REFUSED TO ACCEPT. Jefferson refused to accept it — until he became President. Then he was no longer a strict constructionist. History is on MY side, bud.

        • Hamilton was one of the few ‘big govt’ types among our founders. The notion of ‘implied’ powers was asserted because the Const. did not give the fed. govt. as much power as he wished. Unfortunately for you, Madison nixed the notion that these ‘implied’ powers extend past those specifically enumerated.

          As for Jefferson, I am glad you cited that example — BECAUSE YOU PROVED THE CONSTITUTION SOUND — and the founders correct. ALL men will seek power if not constrained — which is why Obama is trying to break/ignore the constraints of the Constitution.

          You lose — again 😉

        • This is just Gobbledy-Gook.

          To subsume the entire Constitution and by implication the entire Population of the United States under “The National Bank” is a Warping of the Original Intenet and an Abomination of monumental and Grotesque porportions.

          You rhetorical assumption is that the ..”Necessary and Proper”clause IS the Constitution. A rationale for the Washington Elite and the POTUS to change the Law everyday if they so choose………… YOU my friend have just given fuel for those who say the entire US Government has been taken over by the Bankers …. from the Horses mouth.

          ObamaCare as it is currently being pushed on us is Illegal ….is NOT the law passed……as to “hurting it’s implementation” Exemptions for Big Business, Washington Politicians ( and entire Staff) and Soon to be Labor Unions( Government Unions included) and other Sepcial interest Groups were ALSO not part of the “Law” ……. It is and has become nothing but political Reward Machine for certain Groups at the expense of Average Americans……

          The only thing on your side is the Continued Bastardization of the Constitution …. Starting with Marshal extending to Hamilton and even Jefferson on occasion…..and on up to the 1913 Mega-move to reduce the Founding Documents to little more than interpretive guides. But called upon as Rock-solid when questions about Funding the Banksters comes into play…..as your post so clearly hints at.

          The PREAMBLE……. States the Purpose of our Government.

          The ARTICLES ……. Establish the Structure of our Government.

          The Amendments ( Bill Of Rights)….. Clarify the Limits of our Goverments Power.

          The United States of America WAS NOT established to further the aims of a “National Bank”, The “Federal Reserve”, nor of a Governong Elite ………….. we have been decieved and endored FORCED deviation from the move towards Freedom……….. But I actually think History is on MY ( the Constitution’s ) side !

          • Don: Nice summary of important points. No one should doubt that the Liberal/Progressives currently in possession of the White House are in full attack mode against the clear restrictions our Constitution imposes on their power over the lives and property of America’s citizens. As Our Dear Leader has stated publicly on several occasions, he finds the Constitution “constricting.” Someone should inform our first Affirmative Action President that’s what the US Constitution was designed by the greatest political minds of the modern age to accomplish…to provide strong protections against the monomaniacal, narcissistic over-reach of the most delusional political figure since Napoleon Bonaparte. Somehow Franklin Jefferson, Madison, Jay and their comrades knew America would eventually experience a President whose ambition would far exceed his intellect and his knowledge of America’s history and governing philosophy. So the President whose inaugural address referenced his ability to make the oceans begin to recede, also believes he can ignore the clear limitations imposed by our Constitution to prevent the very type of power grab that Obama and his Executive Branch Storm Troopers are attempting to affect. Yes, we have real problems in the White House today. CDE

        • The law was always written to be implemented through the tax code?

          Yes, by King George and England’s Parliament in 1770 and 1773, which is WHY THE COLONIES EVENTUALLY SIGNED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

    • Henry, Henry, Henry, Henry, Henry !

      Are you listening?

      softly spoken and explained:

      The House, the Senate, the President, and the Judicial branch, are all bound by the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution adopted in 1789 and her lawfully adopted amendments, which become part of the Constitution after proper adoption in accordance with Article V (5) of the Constitution.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.