Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney Generals to HHS: “The Illegal Actions by this Administration Must Stop”
TownHall ^ | Jan 5, 2014 | Sarah Jean Seman

Posted on 01/05/2014 2:17:37 PM PST by EXCH54FE

Eleven Attorney Generals wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services accusing it of illegal executive actions.

The seven-page letter, marked Dec. 26, pointed specifically to President Obama’s healthcare “fix” which he announced in November:

The fix is flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law. We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through congressional action.

The United States Constitution’s Take Care Clause found in Article II, Section 3 states the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Not only did Obama disregard the faithful execution of his signature legislation, but he ignored the Constitution by not getting the permission of both houses of Congress before putting into place a new rule, according to the Attorney Generals.

More broadly, we are deeply concerned that this Administration is consistently rewriting new rules and effectively inventing statutory provisions to operationalize a flawed law. And the irony, of course, is that the changes being put forth to fix the disastrous exchanges will ultimately destroy the market and increase health insurance premiums for consumers who played by the rules.

The undersigned Attorneys General support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage. However, the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through congressional action. The illegal actions by this Administration must stop.

Ken Cuccinelli of Virgina, Greg Abbott of Texas, Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana and Patrick Morrisey West Virginia were among those to sign the letter.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: attorneygeneral; hhs; obama; obamacare; obamalies

1 posted on 01/05/2014 2:17:37 PM PST by EXCH54FE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


That’ll learn ‘em!

2 posted on 01/05/2014 2:18:17 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


“It’s GOOD to be the king!” - Barry Soetoro

3 posted on 01/05/2014 2:18:21 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (If you like your ObamaCare, you can keep your ObamaCare. I'll pass. PERIOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


He will thumb his nose at them.

4 posted on 01/05/2014 2:19:44 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Hate this...ATTORNEYS GENERAL....nitpicky, I know. But that’s what Obama would say.

5 posted on 01/05/2014 2:20:32 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Laws mean nothing to the shadowy cabal of Leftists who give Hussein his instructions.

6 posted on 01/05/2014 2:21:26 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Oh, no! A sternly worded letter!!!

7 posted on 01/05/2014 2:23:09 PM PST by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I agree. That is a common, but goofy mistake.

8 posted on 01/05/2014 2:25:21 PM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.(2 Cranch) 137 (1803)

9 posted on 01/05/2014 2:26:14 PM PST by EXCH54FE (Hurricane 416,Feisty Old Vet !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


No one’s had the balls to stand up to the greedy, power mad, Kenyan pig yet so it’s hard to get our hopes up over this.

Meanwhile, the regime is busy putting their vote rigging scheme together to steal the Nov. elections.

10 posted on 01/05/2014 2:27:39 PM PST by Bullish (America should yank Obama like a rotten tooth before he poisons the entire body)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

What we need here is...

“All presidents that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

11 posted on 01/05/2014 2:29:22 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Oh, no! A sternly worded letter!!!

Hey, Attorneys Generar... Take one step to the reft...

12 posted on 01/05/2014 2:29:54 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Look here!
The fix is flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.
This is a big deal. Do something.
Talk about it and vote about it

13 posted on 01/05/2014 2:44:50 PM PST by Recompennation (Constitutional protection for all not ju st selectively for Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Not nitpicky at all, words allow us to communicate and are only effective when used correctly. Thumbs up to you from another grammar “nitpicker.”

14 posted on 01/05/2014 2:47:12 PM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

We have an awful lot of PONTIFICATORS but NOT ONE damn MAN of ACTION.

We have not yet seen ONE INDICTMENT for ANYTHING beginning with Fast & Furious, Benghazi, NSA, etc, etc

15 posted on 01/05/2014 2:49:57 PM PST by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

President Obama’s healthcare “fix” which he announced in November:

Simply put the healthcare "fix" is a huge Constitutional no-no.

Why? Because when Congress sends the president a bill that they have Constitutionally passed and he signs it - it becomes law.

The president just can't add or scratch off something he wants.

The reason why the Supreme Court voted against the line item veto is that if any changes are made to a law after it has been enacted - it is no longer the law that was passed and it must go back through the same Constitutional process to become a new law.

The president just can't use a pencil. It must go back through the Congressional channel, again and get passed as an entirely new bill because that is what it is.

Now, when a president, after the law is enacted changes that law, he NULLIFIES the law. It is no longer the law that was legally enacted.

So, by Obama adding or sratching stuff off the law he NULLIFIED it.

Obama NULLIFIED Obamacare.

Did I mention the word - NULLIFIED?

16 posted on 01/05/2014 2:54:26 PM PST by Slyfox (We want our pre-existing HEALTH INSURANCE back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Is it just me or have we not had a multutude of “constitutional crisis’ and nobody is mentioning it.

17 posted on 01/05/2014 2:59:51 PM PST by Donnafrflorida (Thru HIM all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor
That's right. The corrupted system practically condones Obama’s crimes. It is silly to expect those who profit so well from it to initiate reform. What to do?
18 posted on 01/05/2014 3:23:24 PM PST by Jacquerie (Correct the mistake of the 17th Amendment. Support an Article V State Amendment Convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

As “court martials” is to “courts martial”. Has annoyed me for the 28 years I’ve been a JAG.

19 posted on 01/05/2014 3:24:18 PM PST by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


"Just who the hell are these pesky little midgets knocking on my door?!"

20 posted on 01/05/2014 3:31:11 PM PST by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Donnafrflorida
” had a multitude of “constitutional crisis’”

Yes. we have had a Constitutional Crisis every day starting with Obama’s election and his reelection.

Each and every action he has taken is Unconstitutional and all of his “Fix’s” are grounds for impeachment.

21 posted on 01/05/2014 3:38:54 PM PST by EXCH54FE (Hurricane 416,Feisty Old Vet !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Eric Holder: The Culture of Corruption Enforcer

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 15, 2013 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

[To order the Freedom Center’s pamphlet “Ten Reasons to Impeach Eric Holder,” written by Department of Justice whistleblower J. Christian Adams, click here.]

Just as the Obama administration’s IRS-targeting scandal has started to metastasize, a new controversy has erupted over the government’s monitoring of one of the nation’s largest press bureaus. Using a series of broad subpoenas, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) secretly obtained two months of telephone records belonging to reporters and editors working for the Associated Press (AP). A letter notifying the AP to that effect was sent last Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington. AP’s president and chief executive, Gary B. Pruitt, characterized the DOJ’s actions as a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into news gathering activities. Much more than that, it is a testament to the compromised state of today’s Justice Department, which has been deeply corrupted by its leader, Attorney General Eric Holder.

The records taken by the DOJ included more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists, including cellular, office and home telephone records of individual reporters and an editor, as well as general AP office numbers in New York, Washington, DC and Hartford, CN. Records for the main AP number in the House of Representatives press gallery were also seized. It remains unknown how many journalists used the phone lines, and unclear if the records included incoming calls. The records were for calls made in April and May of 2012.

At a press conference yesterday, Holder attempted to defuse the furor surrounding this apparent scandal. But right off the bat, it became apparent that stonewalling was the order of the day. Despite a DOJ guideline requiring him to personally approve a subpoena of news organization records, Holder told reporters that he had recused himself from the investigation, and that Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole, who led the investigation, had issued it. Thus, when reporters began asking specific questions about the seizure of AP phone records, Holder pleaded ignorance. “I frankly don’t have knowledge of those facts,” he contended. Yet even as he dodged specific questions about the investigation, it remains clear that Holder was well aware of what was occurring. Furthermore, he had the power to call off this unwarranted intrusion into the AP’s entire operation if he so desired. That he didn’t speaks volumes.

The DOJ refused to say why it sought the information. But administration officials are on the record regarding an investigation into the leaking of classified materials published by the AP on May 7, 2012. That story disclosed an al Qaeda plot to place a second underwear bomber on an airplane. In addition, CIA director John Brennan testified in February that the FBI questioned him about whether he was the AP’s source for the story. Brennan denied the allegation, and characterized the release of information to the media about the terror plot as an ”unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.”

Not surprisingly, the five reporters and an editor who were assigned to that particular AP story were among those who had their phone records seized.

In a letter sent to Holder, Pruitt contended the DOJ had sought far more information than could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded that the government return all phone records and destroy any copies of them. “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” Pruitt wrote. “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”

AP reporters are equally upset. “People are pretty mad–mad that government has not taken what we do seriously,” one reporter told Politico yesterday. “When the news broke yesterday … people were outraged and disgusted. No one was yelling and screaming, but it was like, ‘Are you kidding me!?’” Another reporter noted the consequences that could attend these revelations. “We all know that confidential sourcing is the lifeblood of what we do, and people can’t come to us if they think they’re going to be compromised,” the reporter said. “It’s hard enough getting sources, now we’re afraid this is going to have a chilling effect.”

There is ample reason to believe that this chilling effect is intentional. In addition to the DOJ guidelines that require the subpoena of news organization records to be personally approved by the Attorney General, other guidelines reveal that a subpoena can only be considered after “all reasonable attempts” have been made to get the same information from other sources. The subpoena must also be “as narrowly drawn as possible” and “be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period.” The DOJ explicitly acknowledges these constraints are required in order to avoid actions that “might impair the news gathering function,” because the government understands that “freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news.” However, the DOJ has opted to ignore all of these guidelines, and it is almost impossible to believe that this could have occurred without Holder’s knowledge or approval. It is unknown who even signed off on the subpoenas. In the process, the Holder DOJ has sent a powerful message that it has no reservations about being overbearing with inconvenient members of the press.

Furthermore, normally a news organization is notified in advance if the government wants phone records, after which negotiations ensue. Yet as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia explained in a statement released Monday, the DOJ asserts it is not required to notify a media organization in advance of issuing such subpoenas if doing so “would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.” Yet as of now, no one has illuminated the details of the how the investigation could have been compromised. Nor are details forthcoming regarding the “reasonable effort” made to obtain the information “through alternative means.”

Records have been seized from media organizations before, but the size and the scope of this seizure may be unprecedented. ”I’ve never heard of a dragnet collection effort against a media organization like this,” said Stephen Aftergood, who tracks secrecy issues for the Federation of American Scientists. “This was not a targeted monitoring of an individual reporter. It’s a sweeping collection of an entire bureau’s communications.” Lucy A. Dalglish, dean of the journalism school at the University of Maryland concurred. “Unfortunately, the Justice Department does this now and again,” she explained. “What’s very unusual is the scope of the subpoenas.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) was also troubled by the possibility that the government had not justified the need for a secret subpoena. ”The burden is always on the government when they go after private information–especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources,” he said. “I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden.”

There was no shortage of DOJ critics in government and media either. “It’s chilling, and they owe us an explanation,” said NBC News Political Director and White House correspondent Chuck Todd. “This is intimidation and that’s what it feels and looks like and unless they have a different explanation, there is no other conclusion to draw than a way to intimidate whistleblowers.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) framed the issue within the context of the Constitution. ”The Fourth Amendment is not just a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, it is a fundamental protection for the First Amendment and all other Constitutional rights,” he said. “It sets a high bar–a warrant–for the government to take actions that could chill exercise of any of those rights. We must guard it with all the vigor that we guard other constitutional protections.”

NBC reporter Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, was apoplectic. “It is outrageous, totally inexcusable,” he fumed. “This administration has been terrible on this subject from the beginning. The object of it is to intimidate people who talk to reporters. This was an accident waiting to become a nuclear event and now it’s happened. There’s no excuse for it whatsoever. There’s no reason for this investigation, especially on this scale.”

In what has become a recurring theme for the White House regarding several burgeoning scandals afflicting the administration, White House press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the president was unaware of the investigation. ”Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP,” said Carney. “We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department. Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice.”

In other words, regarding an investigation that threatens to undermine some of the most cherished freedoms enshrined in our Constitution, the two highest law enforcement officials in the nation are insisting they were out of the loop.

So far, Holder’s claims of “recusal” from the situation have not satisfied his critics. Once again, as he did last February when Holder was embroiled in the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal — which earned the AG a contempt of Congress citation — Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus called for Holder’s resignation, because he has ”trampled on the First Amendment and failed in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”

It is just standard operating procedure at Eric Holder’s DOJ. “Ten Reasons to Impeach Eric Holder,” written by former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams and published by FrontPage, offers a devastating compendium of Holder’s contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law and exposes much more of the story. Going into great detail about Holder’s various acts of malfeasance over the course of 31 pages, Adams bluntly explains that Holder is a “threat to American liberty and security.” ”The havoc he has created goes far beyond corruption on any single issue,” writes Adams. “The damage he has done crosses all components of the Department of Justice, and has trickled down to infect the systems of law and legal jurisprudence throughout the country.”

This infection will only be eradicated by the removal of Eric Holder from his post. With the press now taking notice and uncharacteristically fuming over this latest affair, perhaps the beginning of the end has set in for the Attorney General at last.

22 posted on 01/05/2014 3:40:47 PM PST by Dqban22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


CNN will probably have a full panel

discussing the racism of these AGs if

it talked about at all.

23 posted on 01/05/2014 3:50:54 PM PST by Harold Shea (RVN `70 - `71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45; jagusafr; Gaffer

Nitpicker be darned. Somebody has to keep the language alive. Bravo.

24 posted on 01/05/2014 3:51:55 PM PST by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Israel may have to stop the muzzie. Our blackmailed politicians wont.

25 posted on 01/05/2014 4:25:19 PM PST by Old Yeller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Hate this...ATTORNEYS GENERAL....nitpicky, I know.

It's said that way because they're Attorneys, but not Generals.

26 posted on 01/05/2014 4:47:28 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bullish
No one’s had the balls to stand up to the greedy, power mad, Kenyan pig yet...

Including us. Most especially us.

27 posted on 01/05/2014 4:49:49 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Whoops....pardon me. I see that you were correcting the error in the title. Props to you, and yes, you can beat me later for my ignorance :-)

28 posted on 01/05/2014 4:52:12 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


The way I see it, if someone follows the dictates Obama unilaterally makes up and hands down regarding Obamacare, that person will be in violation of the actual law and thereby a criminal.

Time for the IRS to make use of all those shotguns.

29 posted on 01/05/2014 5:07:03 PM PST by Gabrial (The nightmare will continue as long as the nightmare is in the Whitehouse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Yes, and you are correct IIRC.

30 posted on 01/05/2014 7:37:49 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
No problem.

Had the error only been in the title posted here, I'd have chalked it up to a typo. But it is this way in Townhall. Additionally, the author made the same error in the body of the article. She only got it correct when she was quoting their statement accompanying the petition.

One would expect that Townhall would ask for more grammatical rigor from its authors.

[I guess we're lucky that she didn't say that she 'conversated' with one or more of them.]

31 posted on 01/06/2014 2:30:04 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

And the story will get buried on the 99th page of some rag newspaper, eventually dying an unnoticed death. Certainly Holder and the Justice Dept. will do absolutely NOTHING about it.

32 posted on 01/06/2014 7:03:47 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson