problems, legal challenges, failures to make progress on important
international issues, being abandoned by Congressional Democrats on an
important legislative measure, President Barack Obama’s recent problems
mount daily, it seems.
He told the graduating class at the U.S.
Coast Guard Academy: “And this brings me to the challenge I want to
focus on today – one where our Coast Guardsmen are already on the front
lines, and that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire
careers – and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate
change.” Not the importance of guarding the shoreline and responding to
emergencies and other events there. No, the threat he chose to include
in his address was climate change, that much-debated theory that is
losing credibility even faster than Mr. Obama is accumulating problems.
August, Mr. Obama said his administration was still devising a way to
fight ISIS, and last week at the G7 conference in Germany he said, “We
don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on
the part of the Iraqis." After ten months with little or no progress on
an Iraq policy, one may legitimately wonder whether Mr. Obama is really
serious about, or prepared to adequately address this problem. Remember
he called ISIS the “JV team.” And more recently the Pentagon claimed
that ISIS “is no longer the dominant force in roughly 25 to 30 percent
of the populated areas of Iraqi territory where it once had complete
freedom of movement.” However, that statement has been shown to be
“misleading and incomplete,” according to Raymond Ibrahim, writing in Human Events.
Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, did succeed in
bringing down the rate of uninsured Americans to the lowest levels so
far, but continues to show major weaknesses that challenge its positive
Among those weaknesses, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon,
are that many Americans still cannot afford health coverage and are
delaying medical treatment; that despite Mr. Obama’s promises that “if
you like your plan you can keep your plan,” more than five million
people in 35 states have lost their health insurance plans; and that
Obamacare will add up to $1 trillion in new taxes. Further, the law
strengthens government control over healthcare, thus weakening the
control of doctors over their practices and of patients over their
healthcare, and the law also is reducing choices for patients.
now a legal challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court may deal a serious
blow to the Affordable Care Act. The Court is expected to announce its
decision later this month in the King v. Burwell lawsuit, challenging
the legality of the government to give tax credits to health insurers in
more than thirty states that use the federal health insurance exchange.
Should the Court rule for King, Obamacare policies in those states
would become unaffordable, and would relieve more than 11 million people
of the individual mandate.
Mr. Obama, perhaps having been tipped
off by a Court insider that the Justices likely will rule against the
administration, has taken to criticizing and chastising the Court for
considering a lawsuit against the Obamacare. Some have interpreted his
comments as trying to intimidate the Court.
confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an
unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed
by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said at
the G7 meeting. “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for
years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial
activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of
people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well,
this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will
recognize that and not take that step."
Perhaps the president
needs a refresher course in American government. The Judicial Branch,
led by the Supreme Court, is a co-equal branch of our government with
the Executive and the Legislative Branches; none of them is subservient
to either of the other two. This separation of powers is expressly
designed to prevent any single branch from becoming dictatorial, which
likely is Mr. Obama’s reason for complaint.
which is to rule on the constitutionality of legislative and executive
acts, is a legitimate function of the Supreme Court, and judicial
activism is lawmaking by the courts, which is not a legitimate function.
Judicial activism is a primary tool of the political left, seeking to
change the constitutional order of things.
Not content merely to
take over the health care system, drag his feet on the Iraq and Iran
situations, and intimidate the Supreme Court, Mr. Obama now proposes to
inject the federal government into influencing or controlling who lives
where in the United States, with a plan to diversify neighborhoods.
be administered through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, critics say it will force municipalities to change their
zoning policies, while supporters say it is an effort “to create
opportunity for all.”
Whichever it is, it is not the job of the President of the United States.