Us Tax Court Status Report: Fill & Download for Free

First a little historyWhile India and Pakistan were getting independence and Indians were rejoicing the fruit of their collective struggle and a few Pakistanis were rejoicing the hard-work of Jinnah and his typist[1][1][1][1] , the then Maharaja of Kashmir was focused on his personal property - the erstwhile Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir.He tried signing the Standstill agreements with the newly formed governments of both India and Pakistan[2][2][2][2] - which basically were sovereign promises made by both the governments, not to attack and annex the state of Jammu and Kashmir, until maharaja made a decision himself.[3][3][3][3] Pakistan signed the agreement.While we all know about how seriously Jinnah kept his side of the sovereign promise when he decided to send members of his armed forces along with Pashtun Kabayil (tribals) across the border into the state of Jammu and Kashmir - very few know about the story of the British betrayal in Gilgit Baltistan.The Betrayal of BaltistanWhile the Maharaja of Kashmir was known as the sovereign of the whole of Jammu and Kashmir - there were two areas, not under his direct control:Aksai Chin (currently controlled by China)Gilgit Agency (Then controlled by the British)About 2 weeks after abdicating control over India - the British transferred the control of Gilgit Agency to the Maharaja of Kashmir.The British loaned two of their officers to the Maharaja to maintain security in Gilgit Agency, as it was known back then, till a long term solution was found by the Maharaja. The British officers were, Major W A Brown and Captain A S Mathieson.On 26th of October 1947 - when the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession with India - Major W A Brown went on to arrest the then Governor of Gilgit, Brigadier Ghansara Singh and announced the accession of Gilgit Baltistan into Pakistan on his own.[4][4][4][4]We all have read about the war of 1947–48 and the eventual ceasefire thanks to UN Security Council Resolution.While the then leadership in India decided to give special status and protection to the fractured state of Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian Constitution - The Pakistanis, as they say in Maharashtra, सुमडी में (Substandard Translation: Secretively) declared Gilgit Baltistan as a formal part of Pakistan - they call it, the Northern Areas.Pakistan was so serious about the cause of the Kashmiri struggle, that they went on to gift a part of Kashmir - the Shaksgham Valley to China as well - again सुमडी में .Till 2019, Pakistan had no qualms dividing and even gifting parts of Kashmir - as long as those actions were done by them. Today though, the table has turned.What will happen Now:As you might have noticed - Pakistan is currently protesting against something, that they have already done in the part of Kashmir they control.To be honest, Pakistan has no cards left in this game anymore. They have called for a joint conference of the Parliament. There is a conference of corps-commanders scheduled as well. This and a few other deliberations perhaps may result in the following:A decision to petition the United Nations -Security Council and perhaps even the International Court of Justice.Calling the High Commissioner of Pakistan back to Islamabad in protest (They don’t have a High Commissioner right now stationed in New Delhi though).Sending the Indian High Commissioner back to New Delhi.Voting to declare the Shimla Agreement null and void (which has prevented them so far from formerly demanding third party interference in Kashmir).Relief, encouragement and support for the terror groups focused on Kashmir along with releasing terror leaders like Hafiz Saeed. A tragic event right now in Kashmir will only bolster their argument.Both the OIC and the Security Council of the UN, will not react on this issue. US and EU too would avoid giving any statements.A few days from now - all the senior leadership of Kashmir will be released in batches. The restriction on communication and the internet would also be lifted gradually. The Administration would have to ensure that no violent incidence is reported and no major loss of life and property takes place.The militants will try and target the Armed forces and government installations and infrastructure.All government property, vehicles and officials are vulnerable currently and all necessary precautions should be in place.If we can see through this phase of uncertainty - there would be lasting peace and prosperity for the people of Kashmir in particular and India in general.This decision will be challenged in the Supreme Court of India. I personally think, the honorable courts would not interfere in this matter.The Kashmiris were not taken into confidence.There are some people, who are speaking against this decision in India. Their core argument is - the people of Kashmir were not brought on board for this . I respect their opinion but disagree with them.Some of the representatives are actually thankful that they weren’t asked - taking a just stand here might have put their own lives in danger.There is a difference between a mob-rule and democracy. Our elected representatives are also supposed to take difficult decisions on behalf of the people, which may even be unpopular.If we go by their logic - there should be no income tax in the country, most of our civic laws would have to be repealed and India will have no restrictions/heavy taxation on Drugs, Firearms, Prostitution and Tobacco.Please refrain from disagreement, just for the sake of disagreement.It is a much needed and long delayed decision, which eventually would lead to the betterment of the people living in Kashmir Valley.Hope this helps. Cheers and peace.Footnotes[1] Not worth even a photo on the wall[1] Not worth even a photo on the wall[1] Not worth even a photo on the wall[1] Not worth even a photo on the wall[2] Kashmir: The origins of the dispute[2] Kashmir: The origins of the dispute[2] Kashmir: The origins of the dispute[2] Kashmir: The origins of the dispute[3] Diplomatic History of Kashmir[3] Diplomatic History of Kashmir[3] Diplomatic History of Kashmir[3] Diplomatic History of Kashmir[4] Gilgit Rebelion[4] Gilgit Rebelion[4] Gilgit Rebelion[4] Gilgit Rebelion

In Arizona our Supreme Court did a year long study and issued a report with recommendations that was sent to our legislature. A very reasonable report by serious, professional, credentialed people making recommendations that would make a significant impact in the system. Here is the executive summary so you can see it’s not frivolous in any way. Unfortunately it had no success in 2017. They will try again in 2018 but it’s a hard battle in our legislature.How long will it take? If we do not change our elected officials, it will take a long time. If there is no vested interest in reducing prison occupancy, it will take a long time. As Americans it is up to us to decide.TASK FORCE ON FAIR JUSTICE FOR ALL:Court-Ordered Fines, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesChair – Mr. Dave Byers, Administrative Director, AOC Vice-Chair – Mr. Tom O’Connell, Pretrial Manager, AOCMr. Kent Batty, Court Administrator, Superior Court in Pima CountyHonorable Michael Robert Bluff, Associate Presiding Judge Superior Court in Yavapai CountyHonorable Maria Elena Cruz, Presiding Judge, Superior Court, Yuma CountyMr. Bob James, Deputy Court Administrator Superior Court, Maricopa CountyMs. Rebecca Steele, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Clerk of CourtHonorable Lisa Roberts , Commissioner, Superior Court in Maricopa CountyHonorable Dorothy Little, President, Arizona Justice of the Peace Association,Payson Magistrate CourtMEMBERSHonorable Antonio Riojas, Presiding Magistrate Tucson City CourtHonorable Thomas Robinson, Tempe Municipal CourtHonorable Don Taylor, Chief Presiding Judge Phoenix Municipal CourtMr. Doug Kooi, Court Administrator, Pima County Consolidated Justice CourtMr. Jeffrey Fine, Court Administrator, Maricopa County Justice CourtsMr. Michael Kurtenbach, Assistant Chief Community Services Division,City of Phoenix Police DepartmentMs. India Davis, Corrections Chief, Pima County Sheriff’s DepartmentMs. Mary Ellen Sheppard, Assistant County Manager Maricopa CountyiiiMr. Ryan Glover, Prosecutor, Glendale City Prosecutor’s OfficeMr. Paul Julien, Judicial Education Officer Education Services Division, AOC Judge Pro TemMs. Kathy Waters, Director, Adult Probation Services, AOC Liaison to Pretrial Advisory CommitteeMr. Jeremy Mussman, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Public Defender’s OfficeMr. Tony Penn, Arizona Judicial Council Public Member RepresentativePresident and CEO, United Way of Tucson and Southern ArizonaHonorable John Hudson, Presiding Judge, Gilbert Municipal CourtMr. Leonardo Ruiz, Deputy County Attorney Maricopa County Attorney’s OfficeMs. Dianne Post, Attorney, Arizona State NAACPMs. Alessandra Soler , Executive Director of the Arizona ACLUAOC Staff:Ms. Theresa Barrett, Court Programs Unit, Manager Court Services DivisionMs. Kathy Sekardi, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMr. Patrick Scott, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Kay Radwanski, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Pickard, Court Specialist, Court Services DivisionMs. Sabrina Nash, Administrative Assistant Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Hunt, Executive Assistant Executive OfficeivJustice for AllReport and Recommendations of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesExecutive SummaryTASK FORCE PURPOSEOn March 3, 2016, Chief Justice Scott Bales issued Administrative Order No. 2016-16, which established the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release Policies. The administrative order outlined the purpose of the task force as to study and make recommendations as follows:a) Recommend statutory changes, if needed, court rules, written policies, and processes and procedures for setting, collecting, and reducing or waiving court- imposed payments.b) Recommend options for people who cannot pay the full amount of a sanction at the time of sentencing to make reasonable time payments or perform community service in lieu of some or all of the fine or sanction.c) Recommend best practices for making release decisions that protect the public but do not keep people in jail solely for the inability to pay bail.d) Review the practice of suspending driver’s licenses1 and consider alternatives to license suspension.1 Throughout this report, the terminology for a driver’s license is used to reflect driving privileges or a driver license as defined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.This report describes the work and recommendations of the members of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the members of the Arizona Supreme Court.1Justice for Alle) Recommend educational programs for judicial officers, including pro tem judges and court staff who are part of the pretrial decision-making process.f) Identify technological solutions and other best practices that provide defendant notifications of court dates and other court-ordered deadlines using mobile applications to reduce the number of defendants who fail to appear for court and to encourage people who receive citations to come to court.The Chief Justice asked the task force to file a report and make recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) by October 31, 2016. The report that follows consists of 53 recommendations, plus additional educational and training recommendations for the AJC’s review and consideration.TASK FORCE ABBREVIATED RECOMMENDATIONSThe annotated recommendations are set forth in more detail in the body of the report. Below is an abbreviated list with links to the full recommendations.Authorize judges to mitigate mandatory minimum fines, fees, surcharges, and penalties if the amount otherwise imposes an unfair economic hardship.Use automated tools to determine a defendant’s ability to pay.Create a Simplified Payment Ability Form when evaluating a defendant’s ability to pay.Use means-tested assistance program qualification as evidence of a defendant’s limited ability to pay.Seek legislation to reclassify certain criminal charges to civil violations for first-time offenses.Implement the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program statewide.Conduct a pilot program that combines the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program with a fine reduction program and reinstatement of defendants’ drivers’ licenses.Test techniques to make it easier for defendants to make time payments on court- imposed financial sanctions.Seek legislation that would grant courts discretion to close cases and write off fines and fees for traffic and misdemeanor after a 20-year period if reasonable collection efforts have not been effective.2Justice for AllAllow probationers to receive earned time credit without consideration of financial assessments, other than restitution to victims.Eliminate or reduce the imposition of the 10 percent annual interest rate on any Criminal Restitution Order.Modify court website information, bond cards, reminder letters, FARE (Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement) letters, and instructions for online citation payment to explain that if the defendant intends to plead guilty or responsible but cannot afford to pay the full amount of the court sanctions at the time of the hearing, the defendant may request a time payment plan.Authorize judges to impose a direct sentence that may include community restitution (service) and education and treatment programs as available sentencing options for misdemeanor offenses.Expand community restitution (service) to be applied to surcharges, as well as fines and fees, and expand this option to sentences imposed by superior courts.Implement English and Spanish Interactive Voice Response (IVR), email, or a text messaging system to remind defendants of court dates, missed payments, and other actions to reduce failures to appear.Modify forms to collect cell phone numbers, secondary phone numbers, and email addresses.Train staff to verify and update contact information for defendants at every opportunity.Provide information to law enforcement agencies regarding the importance of gathering current contact information on the citation form.After a defendant fails to appear, notify the defendant that a warrant will be issued unless the defendant comes to court within five days.For courts operating pretrial service programs, allow pretrial services five days to re-engage defendants who have missed scheduled court dates and delay the issuance of a failure to appear warrant for those defendants who appear on the rescheduled dates.Authorize the court to quash a warrant for failure to appear and reschedule a new court date for a defendant who voluntarily appears in court after a warrant has been issued.3Justice for AllConsider increasing access to the court (e.g., offering hours at night, on weekends, or extending regular hours, taking the court to people in remote areas, and allowing remote video and telephonic appearances).Develop and pilot a system that communicates in English and Spanish (such as video avatars) to provide explanations of options available to defendants who receive tickets or citations.24. Clarify on court informational websites and bond cards that defendants may come to court before the designated court date to resolve a civil traffic case and explain how to reschedule the hearing for those defendants who cannot appear on the scheduled dates.25. Implement the ability to email proof of compliance with a law—such as proof of insurance—to the court to avoid having to appear in person.26. Suspend a driver’s license as a last resort, not a first step.Make a first offense of driving on a suspended license a civil violation rather than a criminal offense.Provide courts with the ability to collect and use updated contact information, such as a database service, before issuing a warrant or a reminder in aging cases.Authorize courts to impose restrictions on driving—such as “to and from work only”—as an alternative to suspending a driver’s license altogether.Prior to or in lieu of issuing a warrant to bring a person to court for failure to pay, courts should employ proactive practices that promote voluntary compliance and appearance.Support renewing efforts to encourage the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators to approach Congress about extending the federal tax intercept program to include intercepting federal tax refunds to pay victim restitution awards, with an exception for those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit.Promote the use of restitution courts, status conferences, and probation review hearings that ensure due process and consider the wishes of the victim. Provide judicial training on the appropriate use of Orders to Show Cause in lieu of warrants and appointment of counsel at hearings involving a defendant’s loss of liberty.Coordinate where possible with the local regional behavioral health authority to assist the court or pretrial services in identifying defendants who have previously been diagnosed as mentally ill.4Justice for AllRevise mental health competency statutes for expediting mental competency proceedings for misdemeanor cases.Bring together criminal justice and mental health stakeholders in larger jurisdictions to adopt protocols for addressing people with mental health issues who have been brought to court.Consider the use of specialty courts and other available resources to address a defendant’s treatment and service needs, as well as risk to the community, when processing cases involving persons with mental health needs or other specialized groups.Modify Form 6–Release Order and Form 7–Appearance Bond to simplify language and clarify defendants’ rights in an easy-to-understand format.Eliminate the use of non-traffic criminal bond schedules.Amend Rule 7.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, to require the appointment of counsel if a person remains in jail after the initial appearance.Clarify by rule that small bonds ($5-100) are not required to ensure that the defendant gets credit for time served when defendant is also being held in another case.Authorize the court to temporarily release a “hold” from a limited jurisdiction court and order placement directly into a substance abuse treatment program upon recommendation of the probation department.Expedite the bond process to facilitate timely release to treatment programs.43. Request amendment of A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) and (E) (Offenses not bailable; purpose; preconviction; exceptions) to authorize the court, on its own motion, to set a hearing to determine whether a defendant should be held without bail.Encourage the presence of court-appointed counsel and prosecutors at initial appearance hearings to assist the court in determining appropriate release conditions and to resolve misdemeanor cases.Request the legislature to refer to the people an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to expand preventive detention to allow courts to detain defendants when the court determines that the release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, in addition to when the defendant’s release will not reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community.Eliminate the requirement for cash surety to the greatest extent possible and instead impose reasonable conditions based on the individual’s risk.5Justice for All47. Eliminate the use of a cash bond to secure a defendant’s appearance.48. Expand the use of the public safety risk assessment to limited jurisdiction courts.49. Encourage collaboration between limited jurisdiction courts and pretrial service agencies in superior courts in preparing or providing pretrial risk assessments for limited jurisdiction cases.Establish information sharing between a superior court that has conducted a pretrial risk assessment and a limited jurisdiction court when the defendant is arrested for charges in multiple courts and a release decision must be made in multiple jurisdictions.Request the Arnold Foundation to conduct research on the impact of immigration status on the likelihood of not returning to court if released to ascertain whether it is good public policy to hold these defendants on cash bond.Encourage the Arnold Foundation to conduct periodic reviews to revalidate the Public Safety Assessment [PSA] tool as to its effect on minority populations.53. Provide data to judicial officers to show the effectiveness of the risk assessment tool in actual operation.Develop an educational plan and conduct mandatory training for all judicial officers.Create multi-layer training (court personnel and judicial staff) to include a practical operational curriculum.Develop online training modules for future judicial officers.Host a one-day kick-off summit inviting all stakeholders (law enforcement, prosecutors, county attorneys, public defenders, city council and county board members, the League of Towns and Cities, criminal justice commissions, legislature, and presiding judges) to educate and inform about recommendations of the task force and provide direction for leadership to initiate the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Train judicial officers on the risk principle and the methodology behind the risk assessment tool.Educate judges about the continuum of sentencing options.Educate judges about available community restitution (service) programs and the types of services each offers so that courts may order services that “fit the crime.”Launch a public education campaign to support the adopted recommendations of the task force.6Justice for AllProvide a comprehensive and targeted educational program for all stakeholders (funding authorities, legislators, criminal justice agencies, media, and members of the public) that addresses the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Request that the Chief Justice issue an administrative order directing the education of all full- and part-time judicial officers about alternatives to financial release conditions. Training and educational components should: Inform judges that cash bonds are not favored. Judges should consider the least onerous terms of release of pretrial detainees that will ensure public safety and the defendant’s return to court for hearings. Train limited jurisdiction court judges to more aggressively allow payment of fines through community service, as permitted by A.R.S. § 13-810.Provide focused judicial education on A.R.S. § 11-584(D) and Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.7(D) about how to determine the amount and method of payment, specifically taking into account the financial resources and the nature of the burden that the payment will impose on the defendant and making specific findings on the record about the defendant’s ability to pay.Update bench books and other judicial aides to be consistent with court-adopted recommendations.INNOVATIONS ALREADY UNDER WAYArizona courts have a history of innovation. As pretrial release issues have arisen, local courts have already begun experimenting with initiatives that support fair justice to all in Arizona. Following are a few projects that highlight promising practices that can be considered for expansion to other jurisdictions.2Compliance Assistance ProgramThe Phoenix Municipal Court has recently implemented a Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) that notifies defendants who have had their driver’s licenses suspended that they can come in to court, arrange a new and affordable time2 See Appendix B for detailed project descriptions of Innovations Already Under Way.7Justice for Allpayment program, and make a down payment on their outstanding fine. More than 5,000 people have taken advantage of the program in the first six months.Interactive Voice Response SystemThe Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts and the Glendale and Mesa Municipal courts have each implemented an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system to notify defendants of upcoming court dates, missed payments, or the issuance of warrants. Each jurisdiction has experienced a reduction in the number of people failing to appear—up to 24 percent.3Limited Jurisdiction Mental Competency Proceedings PilotA pilot project coordinated through the Superior Court in Maricopa County authorized Mesa and Glendale municipal courts to conduct Rule 11 mental health competency proceedings originating in their courts on behalf of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The program has reduced the time to process these matters from six months to 60 days.Justice Court Video Appearance CenterThe Maricopa County Justice Court Video Appearance Center represents the first phase of an initiative to significantly reduce the amount of time defendants are held in custody on misdemeanor charges pending appearance in the justice courts.Pima County – MacArthur Safety & Justice ChallengeIn May 2015, Pima County was selected as one of 11 jurisdictions awarded $150,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for Phase I of an initiative to reduce over-incarceration by changing how America thinks about and uses jails. The initiative is a competition to help jurisdictions create fairer, more effective local justice systems through bold innovation. Pima County was later awarded an additional $1.5 million to move forward with Phase 2, which involves creating an implementation plan for broad system change.

Most modern day historians rank President Obama among the top 5 presidents in our history and yet I’ve never found what common criteria any of them use to justify such rankings or how they apply the same criteria to every president they rank to ensure some modicum of consistency surrounding the ranking of multiple presidencies.Personally, I rank Barack Obama right behind Woodrow Wilson (worst) and FDR (second worst) as the 3rd worst president in our history.To ensure I don’t commit the same blunders as nearly every modern day historian that ranks Obama in the top 5, I believe the only FAIR and CONSISTENT way to judge EVERY PRESIDENT, is by the only written job description that exists. The Constitution.I have written and sourced information about Barack Obama’s presidency before, so as not to completely rewrite everything, here you go:The constitution outlines the following aspects of the role of the President:Preserve, Protect and Defend the constitution of the United States of America.Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States; that is to say their job is to ENFORCE existing laws.Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces.The following items are REPRESENTATIVE ONLY of a handful of unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration, in direct violation of their constitutional job description.NOTE: The links and sources I provide below are NOT intended to provide or disprove my point of view. Rather they are intended ONLY as a starting point for open minded, honest readers to do their own homework before bashing me simply because I dare criticize the job performance of “the chosen one.”GM BAIL OUTThe GM bailout defied hundreds of years of bankruptcy laws, in an effort for the Obama Administration to repay the Unions for their support of his presidential election. A NEW GM corporation would be owned60% by the U.S. government,12% by the Canadian government,17.5% by the United Automobile Workers union, and10% by old G.M. bondholders0% by old G.M. shareholdersUnder the terms of the reorganization, common share holders entire investments were wiped out while the Bondholders, higher in a bankruptcy distribution as a secured creditor, received almost 50% less than the UAW who held unsecured credit status. The point has nothing to do with who the entities are (creditor vs laborer) but rather the hundreds of years of stability this deal destroys at the hands of the Obama Administration, specifically.In addition to this obvious obfuscation of bankruptcy laws, the US Government took a controlling equity position in a privately held company, using that power to remove a board elected executive while at the same time providing direct level oversight of company operations by Steven Ratter, the Automotive Czar.The idea that the president (any president) steps in to save any private company with tax payer funds, has any direct or indirect oversight of said private company and unilaterally changes the pecking order of longstanding bankruptcy laws to pay off political favors is unsettling and entirely unconstitutional.Recess AppointmentsPresident Obama was frustrated that 3 separate nominations for the Consumer Protections Bureau were going unconfirmed by the Senate. In an effort to end-route the “obstruction” of the Senate, President Obama unilaterally declared the Senate “in recess,” immediately making 3 recess appointments to said board.President Obama’s unconstitutional actions was rebuked by a unanimous Supreme Court for his lawlessness.Voter IntimidationFour individuals, associated with the New Black Panther Party, were charged with voter intimidation by the justice department under the Bush Administration. During trial, the 4 defendants chose to not show up in their defense, ensuring a guaranteed “default” win by the Department of Justice. Unfortunately just before the “default judgement” (win) was to be granted by the judge, two political appointees of the Obama Administration decided to drop charges against all four New Black Panther members, for no apparent reason.Stifling of the PressThe Obama Administration was self-touted as the most “transparent” administration in history. Unfortunately, it did not believe in transparency when it came to whistleblowers or the press. The Obama Administration targeted journalists, based on the Espionage Act signed into law by Woodrow Wilson in 1917. The Obama Administration applied the Espionage Act more in 8 years than all presidents since 1917, COMBINED. That is saying a lot since Woodrow Wilson is known for imprisoning thousands of citizens reading the constitution aloud in public and for speaking out publicly against its tax policies.In addition, reporters Sheryl Atkinson and James Rosen were specifically targeted by the Obama Administration for their critical reporting of their activities. Wire taps, pulling of phone records, deleting of Benghazi materials from their personal computers are all activities associated with a lawless Administration.Operation Fast and FuriousThis operation is not to be confused with the Bush Administration’s Operation Wide Receiver, as claimed by Attorney General Eric Holder. Operation Fast and Furious was an ILLEGAL gun running operation, without cooperation or knowledge of the Mexican government, that FORCED legal firearm dealers to knowingly sell guns to straw purchasers and cartel members. The idea was these guns would be tracked to their origins in Mexico so cartels could be picked apart. Unfortunately, the ATF lost track of some 65% of the guns. Of those lost guns, one was used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010 while other Fast and Furious weapons were later identified as having been used in the Paris Terror Attacks in 2015.The disagreement between Congress and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, surrounding the congressional investigations and document production into Operation Fast and Furious led to the Attorney General being held in Contempt of Congress.Affordable Care ActRegardless what one thinks of ObamaCare, it is undeniable that in order to sell the plan to the American people, the Administration proclaimed ObamaCare was a penalty to those who who did not enroll, rather than a tax. Conversely, during Supreme Court testimony, the Obama Administration labored extraordinarily hard to convince the Supreme Court that the “penalties” in the law were actually taxes, because if the penalties weren’t taxes, the law would have to be struck down as unconstitutional. John Roberts ultimately agreed with this painstaking assessment, and for the first time in history, the Supreme Court changed wording of a law to uphold its constitutionality.Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling, several additional unilateral actions by the Obama Administration and its executive level departments raise serious questions about the legality of its implementation. For instance, without congressional approval, the administration unilaterally delayed the individual mandate, and separately, the employer mandate. The question should not be whether the changes to ObamaCare should have been made, but whether the Executive Branch has the authority to make the changes without Congress (it does not).NOTEWORTHY REMINDERS: It’s worth reminding everyone of how two of the architects of this bill, talked about it opening in friendly crowds.Jacob Hacker - ObamaCare not a Trojan Horse to single payer, it’s just right there.Johnathan Gruber - They (progressives) were able to take advantage of the stupidity of the American people’s total lack of understanding about taxation and markets.Defense of Marriage Act - DOMAThe job of the president is to uphold and defend existing laws whether you like them or not. Those laws you don’t like, you work with Congress to change. However, rather than go through that arduous process, the Obama Administration unilaterally decided to stop defending laws they didn’t agree with, that prior administrations and sessions of congress lawfully enacted. One specific law that comes to mind is the DOMA, singed into law by Bill Clinton, which in 2010, the Obama Administration simply decided to quit defending in court. As a result, the law was struck down (despite having been upheld countless times in separate cases in the 20 prior years).As President you don’t get to choose which laws you like and don’t like, rather, you are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the land. You uphold existing law, defend existing law and that it. The extent of law making authority that exists in the executive branch is that of veto or signing power when a bill reaches the President’s desk from Congress.Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals - DAACAAgain, the job of the president is to enforce existing law, not skirt the law or create new laws from an administrative perspective. One such illegal law created by President Obama is DAACA. Using Executive Order, the President created a policy his executives level agencies were to follow when carrying out deportation orders. In fact, the details of the EO essentially granted executive level amnesty to vast swaths of illegal immigrants. Whether or not you agree with the outcome, the President of the United States does NOT have this authority, as President Obama said in his own words on so many different occasions, like in 2011 when speaking at a luncheon to the Counsel of La Raza.Iranian Nuclear DealRegardless if one thinks the Iranian Nuclear Agreement was a good or bad deal for the American people, no sane individual can say it was done constitutionally. If the Obama Administration ever had any intent on this “non-treaty” agreement being binding on the United States, the only way to ensure their efforts wouldn’t be unilaterally undone by a future administration was to submit the agreement to the Senate for approval. However, the Administration knew there was no case that could be made to garner the support of 60 US Senators that the Iranian Nuclear Agreement was in fact in the best interest of the United States. Since that was impossible, the Obama Administration hung their hopes of a “non” US Treaty staying in effect using only the power of the presidency.Clearly the sanctions prior to this “treaty” were working. Iran’s economy was collapsing. Iran is undoubtedly the worlds foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Why then would the US led coalition agree to allow $150 Billion be released from foreign banks (under US Sanctions) under an agreement that allows Iran to essentially self-determine whether they are abiding by the agreement or not.ConclusionThis is in no way a comprehensive list of unconstitutional acts by the Obama Administration, but rather a sampling of his progressive ideology in action. However, what is clear, is that on major policy issues, the Obama Administration was clearly willing to absorb as much power into the executive branch as possible. Whether or not you agree with his policies or decisions, one needs to realize the following:Imagine the politician you trust the most.Imagine the politician you trust the most implementing the policies you agree the most with.Imagine how great life is.Now imagine that same power in the hands of the politician you distrust the most implementing the policies you disagree the most with.It’s like the saying — be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. It is for these reasons that we do not have a King. It is for these reasons that the powers of the president do not authorize the president to make laws, but rather simply enforce laws and sign or veto proposed legislation. That’s it.Some of the information from this post come from my own writings of Bryce Ebeling's answer to What was the worst thing about Barack Obama's presidency?