In this era of increased harassment and persecution of people on the basis of political viewpoints and…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
First Amendment Rights: Good News from the IRS on Donor Privacy

In this era of increased harassment and persecution of people on the basis of political viewpoints and First Amendment expression, there’s actually good news to report.

In fact, that positive development comes from none other than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which few people typically consider a font of good news.

Specifically, the IRS just announced a proposed rule to stop requiring nonprofit organizations to file what’s known as a Form 990 Schedule B, which exposes sensitive donor information not only to the federal government and potential rogues like former IRS official Lois Lerner, but also people who seek to access and use that information to target people on the basis of political belief.

As we at CFIF have long asserted, this welcome move will help protect the…[more]

September 12, 2019 • 11:07 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Obama’s Tyrannical Tendencies Print
By Quin Hillyer
Thursday, January 05 2012
Wednesday's ferociously unconstitutional 'recess appointments' of three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a new director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were just the latest in a long line of abusive expansions of raw executive power.

For years now I’ve warned that Barack Obama gives evidence of disturbingly authoritarian tendencies. Wednesday’s ferociously unconstitutional “recess appointments” of three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a new director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were just the latest in a long line of abusive expansions of raw executive power.

On multiple levels, the recess appointments make a mockery of the constitutional construct. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution requires the “advice and consent of the Senate” for major executive appointments, with the exception that “the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” Long-standing precedent, however, establishes that for purposes of this clause, a “recess” cannot be a mere interlude (as in a three-day weekend) between Senate meetings, but instead a real recess, usually taken to mean at least ten days out of session.

In this case, however, the Senate has been meeting, at least pro forma, at minimum once every three days specifically to preclude just such uses of recess appointments. This is a long-recognized Senate prerogative, exercised as recently as 2007 by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 

What Obama did with the three NLRB appointments was particularly egregious. As Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Because the President waited to nominate Sharon Block and Richard Griffin until just two days before the Senate was scheduled to adjourn last month, neither has undergone a single confirmation hearing or a single day of debate by the representatives of the American people. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But what the President did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future President to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress.”

This usurpation of power is part of a pattern. Obama fired an inspector general without properly notifying Congress. He said he would continue paying his various “czars” even as he signed a bill defunding them. He said he would continue paying for foreign aid forbidden by law. His “science czar” ignores legal restrictions on dealings with China. His Justice Department refuses to enforce civil rights laws to protect white victims from black perpetrators, and refuses to enforce laws against vote fraud if those laws aren’t seen as helping turn out (Democratic) votes. It ignores direct Supreme Court precedent by blocking South Carolina from implementing laws requiring serious identification at the polls.

His Secretary of Education improperly ties “waivers” for states’ education goals to the states’ adoption of administration policy preferences nowhere existing in law. His National Labor Relations Board, without a smidgen of actual authority to do so, blocks Boeing from building planes in a non-union state. His Environmental Protection Agency overstretches its lawful authority on issue after issue. In all these instances, and many more, the guiding Obamite principle is to act first, no matter what legal restrictions exist, and then let private lawsuits and the court system try, somehow, to catch up with all of the transgressions and stop them. Even then, reversing some of the things that have already been done in the meantime might prove as difficult as it is to overcome “squatters’ rights.”

None of these provocations, however, approaches for sheer lawless audacity what Obama did right at the beginning of his administration when, without proper authority, he flat-out took over several of the nation’s biggest car companies. It wasn’t just that he took over the companies; it was how he did so. Completely overriding ordinary bankruptcy rules and ignoring the obvious spirit of the “contract clause” (Article I, Section 9) of the Constitution, Obama ignored the ownership rights ordinarily accruing to secured creditors and unilaterally redistributed close to 30 percent of the company’s value from those creditors to union coffers. It was highway robbery and a raw political payoff – pure graft – combined into one rancid package.

This president puts up with constitutional, republican restraints as if they are nuisances to be obeyed only as temporary roadblocks, observed only until he can consolidate enough power to dispatch them to the trash heap for posterity. His authoritarian proclivities are profoundly dangerous. They must be reined in.

Question of the Week   
On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists using which one of the following?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"There's an old joke often expressed well into banquets and conferences, where a speaker says, 'We're at the point where everything that needs to be said has been said, but not everyone has said it.' We're already at that point with the Democratic primary debates. Tonight was a three-hour ordeal, and candidates largely repeated the arguments they made in the previous two debates. There's not much…[more]
 
 
—Jim Geraghty, National Review
— Jim Geraghty, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Is the desire to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan in conflict with the lessons of September 11, 2001?