An Obama supporter and liberal law professor criticizes the unconstitutional claims of our current, rogue president.

The unanimous decision  [that’s 9 to Nothing including two of Obama’s own appointments ~ blog editor]  of the Supreme Court late last month that President Obama violated the separation of powers in appointing officials is the type of decision that usually concentrates the mind of a chief executive. Obama, however, appeared to double down on his strategy — stating in a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday that he intended to expand, not reduce, his use of unilateral actions to circumvent Congress.

 Summing up his position, the President threw down the gauntlet at Congress: “So sue me.”  . . . . . .    The renewed promise to go it alone is a familiar refrain from this President. He even pledged to take unilateral action to circumvent Congress in front of both Houses, in his State of the Union address . . . .  to the curious delight of half of Congress  [the half that is anarchist/Progressives ~ blog editor] , which applauded wildly at the notion of being made irrelevant.  . . . . .  When Congress failed to pass the Dream Act loosening immigration laws for certain groups, the President ordered the same result unilaterally. His administration also ordered massive changes in Obamacare — from lifting statutory deadlines, to exempting classes of business, to shifting hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to other uses . . . . . . .  I testified on the President’s recess appointments in Congress after they were made and said that the nominations in my view were flagrantly unconstitutional  . . . . . . .   by violating the Constitution on recess appointments, a huge array of rulings out of the National Labor Relations Board could be invalid — creating havoc in the area.

Likewise, the President’s recent loss in the Hobby Lobby case, regarding contraception provisions of Obamacare, will require huge changes in such coverage.    In a case that may be issued any day now in Halbig vs. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit could strike down another unilateral policy on tax credits under Obamacare that would mean that the administration wrongly committed billions of dollars without authority. That decision could jeopardize the very viability of health-care reform.

Editor's note:  The Halbig v Sebelius (Burwell) case was heard in the DC Appellate Court in the last week of June of this year.  It challenges the offering of subsidies outside the Medicaid bases Federal Exchanges per statements of law written into ObamaCare.  Can ObamaCare offer subsidies to those living in the 34 states having no Federal Exchanges.  The law says,  "no,"  but Obama has changed the law in view of the refusal of 34 states to set up exchanges.  This is another - and perhaps the last - huge challenges to this federal lie  law.  

In our system, there is no license to go it alone. Rather, the Republic’s democratic architecture requires compromise. The process is designed to moderate legislation and create a broader consensus in support of these laws.

Nor is congressional refusal to act . . . .   an excuse. Sometimes the country (and by extension Congress) is divided . . . . . .  When that happens, less gets done. The Framers understood such times. They lived in such a time   . . . . .  

. . . . .   Obama’s taunt will no doubt be answered in kind. Indeed, the House is preparing just such a lawsuit. And so, our national politics have finally descended to the politics of the schoolyard playground. However, unlike on the playground, presidential taunts have constitutional consequences.

Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.

Read Dr. Turley’s  full article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-irresponsible-taunt-article-1.1854252#ixzz36jbOPdgq  Know the Dr. Turley is a liberal Democrat and law professor,  a man who voted for H Obama.