The Rule Of Law Means Nothing To Obama

I was going to praise President Obama for the prisoner swap yesterday when we got a POW from the Tailban in exchange for 5 Gitmo prisoners.
After all, the Israeli government do this all the time, so the policy cannot be that bad..
But then I read this from the Washngton Post: Amid jubilation Saturday over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity by the Taliban, senior Republicans on Capitol Hill said they were troubled by the means by which it was accomplished, which was a deal to release five Afghan detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Top Republicans on the Senate and House armed services committees went so far as to accuse President Obama of having broken the law, which requires the administration to notify Congress before any transfers from Guantanamo are carried out.
“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (Okla.), said in a joint statement.
Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.
The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.
Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent. However, the administration and some Democrats had pressed for them to be loosened, in part to give them more flexibility to negotiate for Bergdahl’s release.
A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html
Ok, so if Obama thought the law was unconstitutional, then why in the hell did he sign the bill?
This is why Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States.  The rule of law means nothing to the asshole.
He could have let some members of Congress know what is going on, swore them to secrecy and then everythiong would have been ok.
But Obama took the easy way out, disregarding the law.
So, if Obama won't follow the law, why should anybody else?
Why should I pay taxes?  If Obama won't follow the law, why should I?
Why should Cliven Bundy follow the law regarding the law if Obama doesn't follow the law?
Why should people deal who deal in child porn follow the law when Obama refuses to follow the law?
Actions have consequences and the action of Obama refusing to obey a law that he signed will have conseuences because he and the Federal government now have no creditability in regarding to following laws.