The US government has recently been embroiled in a series of fresh scandals under the Obama administration. The nature of the United States dictates that the actions of the government elected over the polity are in direct oversight of the polity by virtue of the rights of citizens. This creates an environment wherein political figures are often tried by the court of public opinion despite the possibility of the ostensible legality of their actions. In what was one of the most sensational scandals of the last century, President Bill Clinton saw his administration stained very seriously following his illicit sexual relationship with a White House intern. The affair snowballed into an impeachment based on the President’s false testimony concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and although he was ultimately acquitted his term is nevertheless marred in the annals. The American sensitivity to scandal is born out of this aforementioned citizen oversight and often the magnitude of the scandal is dictated by the level of outrage of the citizenry.
While the Lewinsky affair certainly damaged the reputation of Bill Clinton, he remains in the hearts and minds of the American people as one of the most beloved presidents in history, if a bit too relaxed in the fortitude of marital fidelity. Adding to this suspicion is the history of presidential use of the IRS for political purposes. More closely related to the issue at hand is the case of past president using the IRS to further political agendas. James Bovard of the Wall Street Journal notes that Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS to harass newspaper companies including those of William Randolph Hurst because of their publication of unflattering articles. Unlike an affair of a personal nature which may possibly undermine the weakness of an individual, scandals in which the American public is directly affronted and directly offended tend to imbibe a deeper seeded animosity and resentment towards the government. Among affronts, few things gall the American public more than that which offends the very credo dictating the condition of the nation’s existence, that being the US Constitution. This document being sacrosanct, government incursion on the rights of the people as stipulated by the constitution precipitates the ire of the body politic. Such has been the result of the recent IRS civil liberties violations which many consider a muddy heel pressed into the very vellum upon which the constitution was scribed.
The foundation of this scandal was laid in March of 2010 when a Cincinnati-based IRS manager isolated applications for tax-exempt status for organizations with key phrases such as “tea party,” “patriots,” and “make America a better place.” These applications were subjected to additional paperwork and required disclosure of private information including donor and volunteer lists. The intent of these “protocols” was to engage in opposition research and the practice soon became an organization-wide enterprise. The result was an ostensible violation of the First Amendment to assemble freely and criticize the government. Newsweek correspondent Matt Kibbe notes that this is “the type of corruption that developing-world juntas aspire to, and not something the greatest constitutional republic in human history should be reduced to.” Kibbe highlights how this issue is compounded by its association with the infamous Watergate scandal, pointing out that this episode was far worse given that the practice went on for years and occurred at an organizational level. This reality immediately drawn blame over this constitutional violation in the direction of the executive branch. This is reinforced by the fact that the Department of Treasure, the government body responsible for the Internal Revenue Service, answers directly to the president. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington post writes that "It is an easily understood gross misuse of the powers of government to target opponents of the president. What is more, the administration’s supplicants in the lefty punditocracy can no longer claim this is just an IRS scandal." Effectively, the guilt for the violation of the rights of privacy ostensibly falls to the Obama administration. She continues to cite statement from the American Center of Law and Justice citing the unconstitutionality of the IRS breach, noting that the center is representing 27 tea party affiliates in suing the IRS for their gross trespass. Matt Kibbe’s sentiments seem to resound strongly with the American public, especially when he says “If the IRS can target and discriminate against one group of Americans, it can arbitrarily do it to anyone. This is an attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, and Congress needs to act now to make sure it never happens again.”
Among many constituents, the issue of delays to political parties’ paperwork and unlawful investigation, while significant, is less so than the same informational demands and delays to charitable organizations. While the former consideration stokes the anger of the public as a constitutional violation, the latter is an affront to the moral fiber and humanitarian inclinations of the citizenry of the United States who find the politicking in Washington anathema when it trespasses on efforts for the preservation of human life. James Warren notes in the Washington Post that “Many purely charitable groups experience exactly the same inordinate delays and demands for irrelevant information, particularly if they commit the sin of aspiring to provide relief in other countries. Such Section 501(c)(3) requests are routinely selected for “development” and placed in a queue for assignment to IRS agents; the wait is now more than a year.” While not the primary issue at hand, it is important to note that in a consideration of constitutionality and the assignment of guilt, public opinion will be influenced in one of two ways but such considerations as those above. First, many individuals will simply bundle the issues together as a general sense of wrongdoing and will therefore express increased dissatisfaction as a result of their violated sensibilities of human rights and civil rights. The more discerning of constituents however, will consider that the constitution was written and ratified for the protection of US citizens. That document forms the foundation of the ideology of many Americans who believe civil rights are tantamount to human rights and the human collateral from a scandal of this sort, while not a constitutional violation in law, is certainly one in spirit.
The court of public opinion is now in session and the accused is undoubtedly President Obama. Matt Kibbe notes that from the outset of the scandal, the office of the president has been shifting blame away from itself, purporting that President Obama could not possible have been able to track all the goings on of the departments under the purview of the executive office. Fox News reports that the president was unaware of the scandal until it appeared in the press, White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer saying that “No president would get involved in an independent IRS investigation. It would be wholly inappropriate.” While the Obama administration ostensibly chose this tack so as to circumvent blame for the scandal, the lack of knowledge of the president less distances him from guilt and more obviates the lack of addressing the constitutional responsibilities of the executive branch. The system of checks and balances operates to ensure a measure of autonomy to each branch with the others stabilizing the rest of the government by decentralizing authority. This system is effectual only so long as each branch is dutiful in addressing their responsibilities. This means that tasks are seen to expeditiously and efficiently with oversight insured. A major asset to the executive branch is the presidential prerogative in appointing officials. This not only allows a president to select individuals believed trustworthy but creates a hierarchical system within the executive branch that allows the commander-in-chief to monitor the machinations of the entire construct.
The matter of whether or not the White House is addressing their constitutional responsibilities is an important one that is only now beginning to receive some attention. Stephanie Condon of CBS News tapped George Mason University professor James Pfiffner to elucidate the powers of presidential appointees. “They can hire people, fire people, they can commit funds, and build buildings," he explained. ”If somebody is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they have official authority to make policy in the executive branch. If Congress wants them to testify, they can really hold them over the coals." Condon points out that at present a large number of agencies are without appointed heads to the inclusion of the IRS. Between 1977 and 2005 between 20% and 25% of appointed positions were vacant of filled with temporary bureaucratic replacements. Cordon goes on to state that official often have a much deeper knowledge of their field and have the necessary management expertise to run their agency. Representative Frank Wolf, R-Va. noted that the White House has spent months without appointing heads to lead arms of the Department of Commerce to the inclusion of the Census Bureau and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Ostensibly, the executive branch is then not fulfilling its constitutional obligation to fill these positions. As noted above, dutiful address of responsibilities includes an oversight function; there are eight government agencies under executive auspices without an inspector general. This is again due to a large number of vacancies in the offices of the Inspectors General. Condon notes that the State Department has not had an inspector general for five years.
Despite the large proportion of the American constituency calling foul, there are those who believe that the Obama administration is not at fault here. David Horsey of the Los Angeles Times writes that the IRS scandal is less targeting and more “the result of bureaucratic confusion, not political conspiracy.” It is the contention of Horsey and many others that this issue is more one of politicking by conservative groups who have seized on this matter as fuel against their political rivals. Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times points to Republican lawmakers seeking traction from this episode to direct public attention away from their political bungling in Congress over the last several years. The congressional mismanagement of the US budget raised pointed issues about the efficiency of the bipartisan to government. The majority of constituents felt that the out of touch GOP exacerbated the issue, stymieing productive, progressive legislation and combating taxes which would alleviate burdens on the financially disenfranchised.
The event of this scandal serves well to highlight many of the most important features of the constitution. The potential violation of the First Amendment on the part of the IRS which resulted in the trespassing of these rights on over 73,000 applicants in 2012 alone is a manifestation of how government institutions can violate the bill of rights in fashions less ostentatious and perhaps more virulent than what might be seen in other circumstances. In addition, this matter draws attention to the role of President Obama in the scandal as pertaining to his fulfillment of his executive responsibilities. While no evidence exists to suggest the president’s direct complicity in the affair, there is mounting evidence that President Obama has failed to meet the minimum standard of structuring an effective executive hierarchy and thus is in violation of his primary responsibility; to enforce and defend the constitution.
Works Cited
- Bovard, James. "A brief history if IRS political targeting." The Wall Street Journal. 14 May 2013. Print. 22 May 2013.
- Horsey, David. “IRS tea party targeting ‘scandal’ does not live up to the name.” Los Angeles Times. 21 May 2013. Print. 21 May 2013.
- Warren, James. “IRS Scandal: Fair Play or Foul Play?” Washington Post. 19 May 2013. Web. 21 May 2013.
- Weisman, Jonathan. “IRS Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On.” The New York Times. 12 May 2013. Print. 21 May 2013
- Rubin, Jennifer. "The Treasury connection: not just an IRS scandal." The Washington Post. 19 May 2013. Print. 22 May 2013.
