Tag Archives: Fox News

Can Obama’s imperial power grabs be stopped? Rivkin tells Lou Dobbs

Constitutional Attorney David Rivkin to debunk the president’s latest controversial move on immigration on Fox Business Network

Published on 9 January 2012

by Brent Baldwin


OfficialWire PR News Bureau

David Rivkin, the lawyer who designed and argued the successful multi-state challenge to ObamaCare, is turning his guns on the latest and possibly the most egregious unconstitutional power grab by the Obama administration. Watch Rivkin in action on Lou Dobbs.

David Rivkin will be interviewed on Lou Dobbs Tonight on the Fox Business Network Friday, January 13 (7 to 8 p.m. EST) regarding a recent article he co-authored for The Washington Postabout President Barack Obama’s claims that he can preempt state law whenever immigration policy “might irritate a foreign government.”

The case stems from the Arizona immigration policy of penalizing illegal immigrants, and, according to Rivkin, it boils down to an unprecedented expansion of presidential power, among others.

“This is a stunning and audacious power grab, far more expansive than the legal theories that prompted critics of President George W. Bush to argue that he established an ‘imperial presidency.’ It simply cannot be that, despite all the Constitution’s limitations on federal power and executive action, the president’s powers become absolute whenever another nation complains.”

The Supreme Court has granted swift review of this issue, and Rivkin will explain on tonight’s show what he believes about the repudiation of Obama’s latest power grab will be quickly forthcoming.

Source: http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=311146


Obama apology to dead Al Qaeda member’s family? David Rivkin comments

Why did the United States apologize to the family of Al Qaeda Propagandist Samir Khan? David Rivkin debates Sally Kohn, Founder of Movement Vision, on America Live with Megyn Kelly on Fox News.

“…This underscores the extent this administration can’t stubbornly to believe two years in. This is not a real war because you don’t offer condolences to enemy combatants.” – David Rivkin

Air date: October 13, 2011

For more information, visit http://www.DavidRivkin.com

Laura Ingraham Show: Rivkin confident government lawyers will lose ObamaCare case

Lawyer from 26-state lawsuit believes Justice Kennedy will undo ObamaCare

Published on June 22, 2011

by Brent Baldwin


OfficialWire PR News Bureau

Former White House lawyer David B. Rivkin, Jr. was the first public figure to question the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. His argument has proven to be a winner in the courts.

Radio host and author Laura Ingraham recently invited Rivkin on her June 20, 2011 broadcast to talk about the president’s actions in Libya as well as give an update on the major lawsuit against ObamaCare, which is heading for a Supreme Court showdown.

Rivkin said he remains “very optimistic” that by June of next year, the statute “either in its entirety or its most objectionable provisions, will be taken down by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.”

Rivkin said the government was trying to argue that there is a limiting principle that applies to the Commerce Clause. But well over a year into the case, they were having no such luck. “You would expect the government’s arguments to be sharpened, that they would improve, that you would see some opportunities for life down the road,” Rivkin said. “Nothing like that has happened.”

Rivkin called the government’s argument the “time travel theory” and noted that even the American Medical Association was seeking to end its support of the mandate.

When asked by the host to predict the outcome at the Supreme Court level, Rivkin said he had faith that Justice Anthony Kennedy would vote against the constitutionality of the mandate. He noted that Kennedy recently wrote a majority opinion that affirmed a strong conviction that the dual sovereignty system was the essence of our constitutional architecture.

After being congratulated by Ingraham for his tireless work on the case, Rivkin said the case “went beyond healthcare . . . This is really about what kind of country we live in.”

For more information, visit www.davidrivkin.com and www.lauraingraham.com.

Source: http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=78467

David Rivkin rips Obama’s “semantic games” regarding Libya

Constitutional legal scholar weighs in on executive power issue

Published on June 22, 2011

by Brent Baldwin


OfficialWire PR News Bureau

Former White House lawyer David B. Rivkin, Jr. is often asked to explain the actions of presidents in constitutional terms.

On June 20, 2011, he appeared as a guest on the Laura Ingraham radio show to discuss the whether President Obama had exceeded his authority in the Libyan operation by not seeking congressional approval.

Rivkin noted that the War Powers Act of 1973 had been deemed unconstitutional by presidents from both parties, so while Obama had the right not to comply with the act, that did not excuse his handling of the controversial situation.

“It’s a badly executed war. The president has failed to provide any compelling justification to American people or Congress,” Rivkin said, agreeing with the host. “This administration’s view is that the War Powers Resolution does not apply because what’s happening in Libya is not ‘hostilities.’ That’s absurd.”

Rivkin noted that it “pained him” to defend the President, who “even when’s he doing the right thing, as far as the constitutional realities are concerned, cannot bring himself to articulate it in a forthright manner and resorts to semantic games.”

Rivkin said he had to support Obama’s power exercise out of his own respect for the Constitution. “It’s very difficult to defend this administration. These arguments [on Libya], that it’s not hostilities, that our goal is to not unseat Gaddafi are just absurd,” Rivkin said. “As a matter of international law, does anybody believe what is happening in Libya now is not armed conflict?

A frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, Rivkin was recently awarded the prestigious 2011 Burton Award for Legal Achievement for his writing in The Washington Post.

For more information, visit www.davidrivkin.com and www.lauraingraham.com.

Source: http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=993

Transcript: David Rivkin live with Laura Ingraham

(Original air date: February 1, 2011)

Ingraham: Really good news yesterday in Federal District Court in Florida.  Joining us now is lead counsel for the successful ObamaCare challenge, David Rivkin.  David, great to talk to you.

Rivkin: Good to be here, Laura, and thanks very much.

Ingraham: Are you guilty of any of the isms that George Bush was talking about yesterday?

Rivkin: No, I don’t think so.

Ingraham: Nativism, populism, protectionism. All the isms are apparently what’s really the problem in the United States. Anyway, I don’t want to drag you into that, but David, let’s talk about this Florida case.  I loved how Judge Vinson not only, of course, did the right thing on the Commerce Clause, saying “You can’t do this. The Constitution is meaningless if you say that requiring people to buy insurance is permitted under the Commerce Clause.”  But then he went a step further and quotes Obama back to the Justice Department!

Rivkin: Yes, it’s an excellent opinion, Laura, and I really think it takes us to another level. It’s a 78-page opinion.  It really provides an important legal baseline for the appeals court to take into account. It was beautifully argued, extremely well written, and goes, as you point out, well beyond the Commerce Clause, and has an excellent analysis of why Justice’s [Justice Department’s] arguments regarding the so-called Necessary and Proper Clause — which I believe is going to be the most consequential legal argument down the road — why that clause does not support the mandate.

Ingraham: Let’s talk about what’s next because now we’ve had — and correct me if I’m wrong — two district courts rule that the [individual] mandate is unconstitutional and one uphold it.  Is that correct?

Rivkin: Two, actually, have upheld it.  One in Virginia in the Liberty University case upheld the mandate, and the second one, which is probably the one you are thinking about, in Detroit — the Thomas Moore case.

Ingraham: So right now is there any chance this could get fast-tracked to the Supreme Court or are they holding back on that?

Rivkin: DOJ is holding back on that.  Virginia has asked the DOJ for this when their case was decided in December.  The DOJ has said no and the case is on schedule in the Fourth Circuit.  In all likelihood, the Obama Administration is not interested in fast-tracking this case.  It would have been ideal, of course, but they would like to run out the clock and delay the presentation of this case to the Supreme Court as much as possible.  So I personally think what we’re going to get is hopefully an expedited consideration in the Eleventh Circuit, and we’ll be done with it — again, ideally — by late fall of this year, and the case will be sort-worthy and should be considered by the Supreme Court early in 2012 with the argument in January or February and a decision probably in June of next year.

Ingraham: Let’s talk about where you think this could possibly go in the court.  I clerked on the court and predicting what’s going to happen there is always a fool’s errand, but given what you know about the justices and their bedrock views on the Commerce Clause — if you had to guess right now how it would go down, how would it go down?

Rivkin: I’m quite hopeful — and again we’re speculating, as you said — it would be a 5-4 decision in our favor, and the reason for that is Justice Kennedy is the swing vote [who] cares very deeply about federalism.  In fact, I would say this is the one area where he’s been the leading voice in the court.  If you look at his opinions going back to the Lopez case — a very important case affirming limitations of the Commerce Clause — which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act.  He wrote a really strong concurrence that in a moving fashion emphasized the uniqueness of the dual sovereignty system with federal government exercising limited and enumerated powers and the states exercising general police powers.  He called it the most distinctive feature of American constitutionalism. And if you look at his decision in the Comstock case, which came out in May of last year, he has a much briefer concurrence but echoes very much same themes.  So this is an issue, Laura, which Kennedy feels very strongly about.

Ingraham: Well all I know is that all these folks out there who maybe haven’t focused on the judicial branch and the judicial appointments, we are reminded once again how important it is for Republicans to win the presidency and to have that power of appointment again at the Supreme Court, because heaven forbid something happens and we lose one of these conservative justices on the court, this is all over.

Rivkin: That is correct.  I’m hopeful that all of the conservative justices are in good health and the balance in the court will not change.  But you’re absolutely right.  It is enormously consequential.  If, of course, one of the more liberal justices retires and President Obama has another appointment, it would not change the balance.  But if one of the conservative justices for whatever reason steps down, it would fundamentally change the equation.

Listen to the podcast here: David Rivkin live with Laura Ingraham