Monday, June 3, 2013

President Obama, the Constitution Does Not Have an Opt-Out Clause

You may have thought that all the political skeletons were already out of the Obama closet. It isn't so. Republican Senators Rob Portman and Orrin Hatch are demanding answers about Health And Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' private fundraising to augment finances for Obamacare, saying her actions were legally and ethically wrong. In interviews with Newsmax, both Senators said that Sebelius' activities were ethically borderline and probably illegal. Since March, Sebelius has solicited donations on behalf of Enroll America, an entity which is made up of Obama campaign loyalists seeking to boost insurance exchange enrollments. Secretary Sebelius asked for donations, for example, from H&R Block and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which supports anti-obesity and other health outreach campaigns. H&R Block hasn't donated yet, but the Foundation donated a total of $14 million. Republicans say the fundraising drive violates the federal "anti-deficiency" act, which prohibits government agencies from accepting voluntary services or donations. However, HHS officials say a section of the Public Service Act allows its secretary to seek donations to support health programs. Hatch, who is the ranking Republican member of the Senate Finance Committee and two other senior GOP Senators have sent a letter to HHS Inspector General Daniel R. Levinson, seeking an investigation of Sebelius' activities, which ethics specialists have termed as being anywhere from a stretch legally to a shakedown of cash from companies the HHS oversees. “These activities call into question whether appropriations and ethics laws are being followed,” said the letter, which The Washington Times reports was also signed by Senator Lamar Alexander, ranking Republican member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and Senator Tom Coburn, ranking GOP member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Hatch told Newsmax that Sebelius’ actions were “ethically suspect” and maybe even illegal.“If the secretary of any part of our government can call individual companies that do business with that part of our government and ask for money, that’s a tremendous amount of pressure they’ve put on in an inappropriate way,” the Utah Republican said. “Those companies or foundations may feel like: ‘Well, we’ve got to give, even though we find it outrageous, or we’ll suffer the consequences - or they’ll give us a rough time in the future....That’s why we shouldn’t do things this way,” Hatch said. “It may be a total violation of laws that are extremely important here.” Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman also said that if it's proven Sebelius is raising money privately, she's breaking the law. Portman told Newsmax that the Constitution stipulates that Congress has the sole authority to determine the level of appropriations for federal programs. He argued any efforts by Sebelius to raise additional funds for Obamacare would violate one of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution. "I am very concerned about this HHS issue which is also one we need to get to the bottom of because, in essence, it is the Secretary of Health and Human Services refusing to accept the constitutional role of Congress which is the power of the purse, meaning that the federal agencies are not supposed to spend money that Congress does not appropriate," he said. "That's the way our Founding Fathers set it up and they did it on purpose. They wanted the people's house - the House of Representatives - and the Senate to be able to approve spending. So Congress chose not to allow HHS to spend money on some of the efforts related to Obamacare and she, instead, has said, okay, well, I'm going to do it privately." Portman added that if Sebelius is raising private funds for a governmental activity, and circumventing Congress to source the additional funds, she would also be violating the "anti-deficiency law." "The anti-deficiency law was put in place to avoid just this sort of thing. I am concerned about it. It hasn't gotten as much notice maybe because these other things are swirling around, the AP and Fox News issues and the Benghazi issue and the IRS issue, but it is one that we do need to get to the bottom of..." ~~~~~ So, dear readers, we can add to Obama's problems the possible HHS "fleecing" of private companies that do, or seek to do, contractual business with HHS to pay for government activities that Congress has specifically refused to fund. This may seem like small fish compared to the assassination of an abandoned US ambassador or the attempt to fetter free speech of political opponents through the harrassment of charitable organizations or journalists. But Secretary Sebelius' disregard for constitutional constraints is characteristic of President Obama's administration. Either the United States is a constitutional republic - or it is not. There is no constitutional clause that says the President and his Executive branch can opt out when the Constitution becomes inconvenient.

4 comments:

  1. You're surprised at a Chicago politician having his Sec'y of HHS do a "shakedown". I'm not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Concerned CitizenJune 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM

    AP,Fox News, Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious, Green Energy funding via government loans, all the trouble with AG Holder, and now HHS Secretary is out hocking influence at the White House for money.

    So again tell me about why Nixon was forced to resign.

    Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer ... do the read the Constitution at Harvard?

    Some say the best is yet to see the light of day in Washington

    ReplyDelete
  3. Honesty takes the long road to reach it's point. Honesty will stand at the gate of public value and knock and knock until someone answers and opens the gate. Who then rushes in ... why it's dishonesty, lairs, and cheats bribing their way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius broke the law by soliciting funds from companies that are doing business with HHS - and doing so in behalf of monies for Obamacare ... why then aren't the companies that aunty up (and they knowingly were/are being bribed and extorted) the monies asked for also equally as guilty.

    It's like if my 2 sisters decide to rob a bank and in stead of turning them in I drive the get-a-way car for them ... I'm guilty of the bank robbery. I acted of my own free will. my defense could be I was only trying to protect my siblings. Or i didn't think they would go through with the bank robbery.

    "The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions"

    ReplyDelete