Barack Obama does not seem to like democracy all that much. Actually, let me re-phrase that. It’s not that Barack Obama doesn’t like elections (as long as he wins) and campaigns (as long as he is treated deferentially and not asked a lot of hard questions) or even democracy itself (as long as it does want he wants). Rather, it seems like he doesn’t like the kind of constitutional democracy we have that puts limits on what one person or one branch of government can do without the consent of other people or other branches. And when I say that he doesn’t seem to like/appreciate our kind of constitutional democracy, I am saying this because of the way he has been acting recently.
When Republicans in Congress wouldn’t go along with President Obama’s ideas for changing the “No Child Left Behind” law, the President got upset, calling them obstructionist, etc. Of course, “No Child Left Behind” has been up for reauthorization since 2007, and President Obama and the Democrats didn’t try to change it in 2009-2010 when they controlled both houses of Congress.
The President finally made his proposals to change No Child Left Behind in 2011. Not surprisingly, Republicans who were elected, in effect, because voters didn’t like what President Obama was doing, did not agree with some of the President’s proposals. So the President had his Secretary of Education tell the states that, if they would agree to comply with a new set of rules, which were, in effect, the changes the President wanted to make to No Child Left Behind, he would give them money and a waiver from complying with the old law.* In other words, Congress wouldn’t change No Child Left Behind like President Obama wanted, but that was no problem. President Obama effectively repealed it on his own, by issuing new regulations and waiving the provisions of the old law.
In the case of the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the President was apparently worried that the Senate might not approve his nominees (even though in the case of two of the nominees, their nomination had only gone to the Senate three weeks before), so he appointed them by “recess appointments.” (Also here and here.) The only problem was that the Senate, following precedent (not long precedent, to be sure, but still precedent), didn’t think it had gone into recess. Every couple of days a few senators would meet so there would be no recess. The President didn’t like this, so he decided, on his own, that the Senate was effectively in recess, regardless of what the Senate said, and that he could make recess appointments. Eventually, the courts will decide whether President Obama gets to decide whether the Senate is in recess or not, but in the meantime it’s another example of President Obama’s view that he can do whatever he wants.
Here is another: Some people did not like certain of the amendments made to the 1996 welfare reform law when it was reauthorized in 2005, and there have been efforts to change the law ever since. But Congress, even the 2009-2010 Democratic Congress, hasn’t done so. Now the Department of Health and Human Services is doing it on its own, issuing new rules to make some of the changes Congress wouldn’t pass.
In June the Department of Homeland Security announced that, in certain cases, it would no longer deport illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came to the United States as children. (Also, here.) This was part of the DREAM Act that never passed Congress – and that President Obama didn’t push all that hard. But whether President Obama tried to get the law passed or not, the point is that Congress didn’t pass it, so the President shouldn’t be implementing provisions of the DREAM Act by telling his appointees to ignore the law as it is in effect.
Here is what Politico reported in June:
“A White House official said the strategy is the result of a stalemate in Washington.
‘We work to achieve our policy goals in the most effective and appropriate way possible,’ the official said. ‘Often times, Congress has blocked efforts (ie [No Child Left Behind] and DREAM) and we look to pursue other appropriate means of achieving our policy goals. Sometimes this makes for less-than-ideal policy situations — such as the action we took on immigration — but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics, he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.’”
In an interview with Time magazine reported in early September, the President himself said the same thing:
“‘Where Republicans refuse to cooperate on things that I know are good for the American people, I will continue to look for ways to do it administratively and work around Congress. And a good example of that is, for example, making sure that homeowners around the country can take advantage of these historically low rates and refinance. There’s no reason Congress can’t move forward and at almost no cost to the federal government really boost the housing market and our economy. But if Congress won’t do it, we’ll keep on looking for ways to get that done without legislation.’”
But the point is that democracy means following proper procedures. The Constitution sets out how laws are supposed to be passed. The Constitution doesn’t say that the President, or anybody else, can do whatever he or she wants just because they “know” it is “good for the American people”. In the United States we have rules to follow. Those rules are what protect our liberty. In the United States the ends do not justify the means. If a President can’t get Congress to do what he wants, then he doesn’t get to do what he wants. That’s democracy. That’s a government of laws, not of men.
Another example: In March of this year, President Obama told then-President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia, with respect to a missile defense agreement between the United States and Russia: “[I]t’s important for him [i.e., Vladimir Putin] to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
It is comments from like these by President Obama, plus the ways he has already ignored Congress and the law in the last couple of years, that make me worry about a second term for President Obama. President Obama doesn’t seem to understand that Congressional “obstructionism” may really be the voice of the people telling him they don’t what to do what he is proposing. And he doesn’t understand that, under our democracy, the fact Congress won’t do what he wants, doesn’t mean that he can disregard the rules and do what he wants anyway because he “knows” what's “good for the American people.”
-----------
* Motoko Rich, "'No Child' Law Whittled Down by White House," The New York Times, July 6, 2012; Laura Meckler and Stephanie Banchero, "Obama Rewrites 'No Child' Law," The Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2011.
Comments