Obama: Yeah, I know Democrats Agreed to the 2011 Spending Deal, But the Speaker's an Idiot for Believing We'd Abide By It

The GOP Old Guard can't seem to understand that it -- and we -- are engaged in an all-out war with the radical left. Today's Democrats are true believers. They're former members of Students for a Democrat Society. Sympathizers with the Weather Underground. And inspired by other counter-revolutionaries dedicated to burning the United States Constitution.

Of that there is more than enough proof: their support of ACORN and other organizations whose sole purpose is vote fraud; their cynical advocacy for illegal immigration; and their willingness to violate the nation's highest law whenever possible.

So not only did the feckless Speaker of the House, John Boehner, get screwed on the 2011 budget deal... Not only did he pull his most powerful weapon -- shutting down the non-essential portions of the government temporarily -- off the table... But, worse, it turns out that parts of the budget deal, including riders agreed upon to by Democrats and Republicans, will be ignored by President Obama.

One rider [to the bill] – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

This raises an extremely serious constitutional question: if Congress has refused to fund the “czars,” where exactly does President Obama get the authority and funding to pay them?

...Remember Iran-Contra? The problem for the Reagan Administration there was that Congress banned the president from allocating money to the Contras. The Administration, quite illegally in my view, tried to get around that ban by using funds from arm sales to Iran to subvert the Congressional ban.

At least the Reagan Administration had the decency to do this secretly, knowing that it was acting unconstitutionally. Moreover, the Reagan folks at least were able to claim that they technically weren’t violating the Congressional ban, because they weren’t using Congressionally allocated funds, but the proceeds from arms sales.

The Obama Administration, by contrast, seems to be brazenly violating the Constitution. As I tell my constitutional law students, Congress’s ultimate power is the power of the purse. If Congress objects, for example, to military action engaged in by the president, it can simply refuse to allocate funds.

But the Obama Administration’s position seems to be that so long as it issues a signing statement refusing to abide by restrictions on funding that it deems to interfere with executive prerogatives, it can simply create the funding out of thin air...

...This is a very dangerous position for the Executive branch to take, and I hope even Obama partisans will recoil at this ... If Obama had such serious constitutional objections to Section 2262, he had only one constitutionally proper move to make, and that was to veto the bill.

...the principle that Obama seems to be asserting, that the president can allocate money from budgetary funds even when the law says he can’t, goes beyond the constitutional sins of the Reagan Administration.

Will the GOP leadership ever comprehend what it's up against?

And summing it up for the drones out there: if you objected to Iran-Contra -- and if you have an ounce of integrity -- you would speak up against this outrage.

Who among you Democrats is brave enough to denounce the behavior of this president?


Update: "Boehner last week: the budget deal “eliminates the salaries and expenses of the “czars”’ — Boehner this week: “It’s not surprising that the White House...is objecting to eliminating them”"


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!