The Affordable Care Act claims federal power is unlimited. Now the High Court must decide.

(Published in The Wall Street Journal, March 22, 2012)

Few legal cases in the modern era are as consequential, or as defining, as the challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court hears beginning Monday. The powers that the Obama Administration is claiming change the structure of the American government as it has existed for 225 years. Thus has the health-care law provoked an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional showdown that endangers individual liberty.

It is a remarkable moment. The High Court has scheduled the longest oral arguments in nearly a half-century: five and a half hours, spread over three days. Yet Democrats, the liberal legal establishment and the press corps spent most of 2010 and 2011 deriding the government of limited and enumerated powers of Article I as a quaint artifact of the 18th century. Now even President Obama and his staff seem to grasp their constitutional gamble.

Read more »

Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is broad but not limitless.

(published in The Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2012)

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY

On Monday, the Supreme Court will begin an extraordinary three-day hearing on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. At stake are the Constitution’s structural guarantees of individual liberty, which limit governmental power and ensure political accountability by dividing that power between federal and state authorities. Upholding ObamaCare would destroy this dual-sovereignty system, the most distinctive feature of American constitutionalism.

ObamaCare mandates that every American, with a few narrow exceptions, have a congressionally defined minimum level of health-insurance coverage. Noncompliance brings a substantial monetary penalty. The ultimate purpose of this “individual mandate” is to force young and healthy middle-class workers to subsidize those who need more coverage.

Read more »

Constitutional Attorney David Rivkin to speak at American Enterprise Institute

Published on 14 January 2012

by Staff

(OfficialWire)

Washington, D.C. (USA)
OfficialWire PR News Bureau

The 2012 election year has just begun, and already controversies have swirled around a number of President Obama’s actions. Constitutional issues are at the forefront as the president seeks to improve his chances of reelection by delivering on his promises. But is the president violating the Constitution as he tries to implement his program of transformation? Constitutional attorney David Rivkin believes he is. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington D.C. will be facilitating a discussion on one of the recent controversies, President Obama’s “recess appointments.”

On January 4, 2012, President Obama made the following appointments: Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB; and Richard Griffin, Jr., Sharon Block, and Terence F. Flynn as members of the NLRB. At the time of the appointments, the Senate was holding a series of “pro forma” sessions. The U.S. Department of Justice claims that the President has the authority to make these appointments, in essence, to decide based on his own analysis about when Congress is in session. David Rivkin and other constitutional law experts disagree.

Read more »

On January 4, 2012, President Obama made the following “recess” appointments: Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB and Richard Griffin, Jr., Sharon Block, and Terence F. Flynn as members of the NLRB. At the time of the appointments, the Senate was holding a series of “pro forma” sessions. While the U.S. Department of Justice claims that the President has the authority to make these appointments, in essence, to decide for himself when Congress is in session, David Rivkin and other constitutional law experts disagree.

“The Constitution allows the President to make recess appointments only when the Senate is in recess; it does not guarantee him the right to make one or more of such appointments,” says Rivkin in his written testimony.

According to RIvkin, the Office of Legal Counsel “takes what was meant and written as a gap-filler or safety valve — what to do when the Senate is out-of-town and unable to confirm a nominee to a vital position — and converts it into an affirmative grant of power that guarantees the President the right to make some number of appointments without the Senate’s approval.” This will weaken Congress’ power.

Watch and discuss David Rivkin’s testimony before CA Rep. Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee of Oversight & Government Reform.

Constitutional defender and appellate attorney David Rivkin debates Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights on the tenth anniversary of Guantanamo, how the U.S. treats its terror suspects, the U.S. Justice paradigm, and current legislation. “For the first time Congress has explicitly put its stamp of approval on what here to for has been done either based upon indirect congressional support and authorization to use military force, executive branch practices and judicial decisions.” – David Rivkin on not seeing the legislation as “new.”

No president has resorted to recess appointments when Congress is in session. Expect serious legal challenges to new financial regulations.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

President Obama’s appointments of Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and of three new members of the National Labor Relations Board, are all unconstitutional.

Each of these jobs requires Senate confirmation. The president’s ability to fill them without that confirmation, using his constitutional power to “fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate,” depends upon there actually being a recess. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are open for business. The new appointees can pocket their government paychecks, but all their official acts will be void as a matter of law and will likely be struck down by the courts in legal challenges that are certain to come.

Read more »