In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Obama is looking more and more like Hugo Chavez every day. The guy is losing his marbles.
Yeah, he’s either flipped his wig or he’s got some aces up his sleave.
Wonder if those judges were actually elected to their positions?
This seems silly, but this is the kind of issue which ignites civil war. The worst kind of war. Its plain in The constitution Obama is way of base, though I loath Judicial law making. They do have the right to say weather it is Constitutional. No ifs, ans, or buts.
Than again we all know Leftists have loved this till they make decisions they don’t like. Which of course we have all come to expect.
Obama acts like a banana Republic Dictator more every day while, even his puppets the MSM are hard pressed to hide it these days.
Read O’Bambi’s comments towards the end of the article, pure gobbledygook. This crapola is what comes out of the mouth of the greatest orator that ever lived, and a Constitutional scholar to boot?
The President forgets (or never learned) that the number of Congressmen supporting a law is immaterial if the law is unconstitutional.
Reproduced from the comments:
by alanwillingham April 3, 2012 6:24 PM EDT
“Despite many Democrats circulating rumors that Barack was a professor who taught Constitutional Law, it continues to be clear that Obama fails to grasp the most basic fundamentals upon which our country and its system of law was established.
How can he be so appallingly ignorant of the Separation of Powers that created three co-equal branches of government? The Legislative, the Judicial and the Executive? Every 6 year old knew this when I attended school
World leaders must have been shocked almost into speechlessness when they heard Obama claim that “these unelected judges have no right to strike down a democratically passed piece of legislation”
Once again, mere children know that the Judicial branch of government decides whether a law conforms with or violates our Constitution when a case is heard. That is their fundamental function… Checks and Balances… which Obama instead seems to believe are ways to pay his backers with taxpayer money.
How can Obama be so glaringly uneducated as to make that statement in public and in front of witnesses? Does he really fail to comprehend that this country is a REPUBLIC and not a democracy?
How is it none of those present in the room, many of whom are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic, challenged this vicious attack against our Constitution by this totally inept man who grandly boasts his lack of education and his desire to tear down and render our Constitution impotent and useless?”
Ahem…Constitutional scholar you say? Harvard Law Review you say? Oh please, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, needs assurances that the President will abide by the Constitution!!!
So now they have the Renegade In Chief.
It is an Obama-Nation(tm) to make one weep…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
The US Supreme Court has been striking down ‘Acts of Congress’ as unconstitutional since 1803.
Any US high school graduate should know that,
Any first year law student learns that,
Every lawyer in the USA should know that,
That simple fact of the Supreme Court deciding the constitutionally of Congressional/Presidential Actions – is fundamental to our system of checks and balances.
Enkidu
“He then taught at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law.”
So, we have to assume that he knows the Constitution, and where the SC stands.
This means the empty suit is posturing, dangerously, attempting to undermine the law of the land.
Hugo Obama anyone? When does he send in the tanks?
Someone should take the shovel away from Obama.
This is hilarious. Good for those judges. Obama overstepped on his rhetoric and shows how he misunderstands the conservative message. Judicial overreach is when judges read thibgs into a law that arent there or “evolve” the interpretation without any legislative change.
Striking down a law. Thats one of the courts functions, even if they agree with intent or spirit. If it is bad law that offends some other key principle and no severability clause is in there….even if thete is….the court tells the legislative branch that they need a rewrite.
Obama is such a goof in these situations. I keep thinking he must have some other agenda and there was a reason, bit increasingly it is cleat he just gets it wrong
Thebthougt of his one acccomplishment going away must gall him. It would be like finding out osama is actually living in a siburb of st louis
As I’ve said before, Obama is violating his sworn duty to abide by the Constitution.
Yesterday, using and abusing a press conference called about US relations with Mexico and Canada, instead, Obama launched into a long comment about His Health Care act. In this comment he threatened the US Supreme Court, telling them that he expected them to pass His bill, and that they were essentially irrelevant to the governing process because – they weren’t elected.
Of course, he ignores that this rejection of having the justices dependent on the mood of the majority, was precisely the intention of the Founders in setting up this branch of the US government as unelected.
He also ignores that he got His healthcare act through Congress, not by a fair election based on its merits – for Congress did not read the bill – but by extreme backroom deals and manipulations in return for their vote. And, not one GOP member approved of the bill.
Today, Obama is yet again in full emotional manipulative tactics; today, he is deriding Ryan’s budget, passed in the House (Obama’s budget was unanimously rejected) – as ‘Social Darwinism’.
Today as well, Obama has again openly confronted the SC. He used a different public venue (yesterday it was at a meeting of the leaders of Mexico and Canada) – today it was a meeting with newspaper executives on the budget. He declared that the SC can’t make its own decisions, that it must acknowledge the superior Will of Congress.
If this is the case, then, why have a Supreme Court? Why have it expressly mandated, in the Constitution, to review and evaluate the laws as passed by the Congress? If it’s just a rubber stamp for Congress – then, why bother with it?
I’m beginning to suspect that Obama has been leaked the decision and is publicly working to create a hysteric public outcry and pressure against the SC’s possibly negative decision.
Hans
I’ve got to agree with Dan that Obama is entirely aware of what he’s doing, and how he’s thumbing his nose at the Constitution. It’s intended.
If you consider the many things that Obama has said over the years, and that of other liberals, like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is that they openly despise the Constitution, and despise even more the fact they must work within the Constitution to change it. That’s the crux! They’re trying to change the nation by working outside the Constitution by appointing judges with a similar view, and intimidating the Court when they don’t have the numbers.
THIS is why Newt Gingrich is CORRECT when he says there needs to be some sort of mechanism to hold justices accountable when they blatantly rule against the law of the land.
I sure hope that Newt can find a way to steal the nomination at the GOP convention, because I feel he is the only person who truly understands the scope to which the enemy has infiltrated the government(at all levels). That said, I know I’m dreaming.
Just a reminder . Remember when Obama humiliated the Supreme Court Judges at the State of the Nation address? Pay Back can be a Bitch.
Mr. B. H. Obama has decried the possibility-probability of the SCOTUS overturning “Obamacare” claiming (In another lie) that this action would be unprecedented. As to the that court, such has occurred about once every 16-months since the famous Marbury Vs. Madison case in 1803.
However, if Mr. Obama feels so strong about such judicial actions, he should condemn Federal judges’ overturning of the Several States’ Voter ID and illegal-immigrant control laws as they were also passed into law by the democratically elected representatives of the People.
In Wisconsin we also have an Obama-appointed Federal judge who overturned the redistricting plan enacted by the likewise elected representatives of our citizens—Even though they were as compact as possible and provided as equal representation as could be had.
@ Indiana Homez USA:
A mighty storm is a comin’…and my guess is that it won’t be pleasant.
We’ll see how the Supremes hold up to the Renegade-in-Chief.
Good luck, God Bless, and Godspeed because you’re going to need it…
Psalm 71:3
Be to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress, to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
The relationship of the Pelosi/Reed Congress was IMHO not constitutionally separate from the Obama Administrative branch. The fact is they did what Obama wanted like lap dogs…Pelosi didn’t even understand anything she was pushing…This is what happens when incompetent people are placed above their ability.
The Congress of Pelosi/Reed failed to be the independent and was a disgrace to America
Now Obama wants the third leg of the Republic (Judicial) to join the betrayal of Congress and give his Administration total obedience..
Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution, he is ignorant or a traitor. Your Choice!
It’s actually pretty sad. This guy hasn’t broken a sweat in his life. The one thing he’s trained in (law), the one thing he’s taught (constitutional law) and he’s about to be corrected very publicly.
If I was him I’d be ashamed of myself.
apparently the U.S.constitution was not taught in Kenya
ET, the constitution is a dead letter.
Was forcing people to BUY Social Security constitutional?
Frankly, while I despise Obama and his “signature legislation”, and fervently hope it’s overturned, this battered libertarian can’t figure why mandatory participation in health insurance is any different than mandatory participation in Social Security (or CPP in Canada).
Yes, it maintains the superficial infrastructure, but the US isn’t a constituional republic anymore, and hasn’t been for many decades.
The constitution is something conservative/libertarian think tanks and talk show guys like Levin rant about. But it’s a dead letter.
AND when a constitution is trashed there’s no going back. Analagously, when sound money has been trashed, there’s no going back to that either.
Franklin Roosevelt also took on the Supreme Court when it overturned some of his New Deal laws. He couldn’t replace the judges so he announced he was going to increase the number of judges. He gave up this obvious attempt to stack the court due to public pressure.
Obama charachterized the House vote on Obamacare, 219-215 ( which works out to 50.46% ) as a ” strong majority “.
The man has no respect for the truth, or the Constitution, or his countrymen.
mnd- I disagree; the Constitution is an important and vital US document.
The US and the Canadian Constitutions are very different. In the US, the federal part has specific and limited powers; any powers not enumerated belong to the States. In Canada, there is less distinction, and powers not enumerated are readily the prerogative of the federal govt.
As you probably know, a key distinction is the ‘Commerce Clause’ Art 1, sec 3, and the problem is whether the federal govt can enforce a commercial action; namely, purchasing insurance. The 11th circuit has ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. Again, the US federal govt does not have the powers of the Canadian federal govt.
The US social security, the payroll tax, is not a purchase but a general tax. Obama’s medical insurance is a mandated purchase, and this is the problem. Can a govt force someone to buy something?
I don’t know what YOU mean by ‘constitutional republic’. [I know what I mean but I don’t know what YOU mean].
Me No @ 8:11:
Why concede that it’s dead? Sure it’s battered and bruised, and non-binding if you’re the Liar in Chief. But that’s fixable. The constitution in exile can be repatriated. I think we’ll see one major move in that direction when SCOTUS rejects Obamacare.
BTW, the difference between SS and “The Mandate” is that the Gubmint, for political reasons, justified the mandate as covered by the Commerce Clause, not its taxing authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause. I think.
It’s unlikely to happen, but the prospect of the professor of Alinsky Law and Critical Race Theory getting schooled by the 5th Circuit is too delicious!
I think Obama is playing a long game in regards to the Constitution for the upcoming election. One has to remember that there are some Democrats who believe that the Constitution is just an old piece of paper, and undoubtedly, I can imagine that in a few pulpits around America, the sermon is about how the Constitution is for white people only.
I believe that Obama will attack the Constitution in a subtle way during the election. All he has to do, is to suggest that the Constitution is preventing the people from getting what is “rightfully” theirs.
Unfortunately there are more “dumb” voters than there are “smart”.
One ugly election coming up.
Obozo has violated his pledge to protect the constitution and the only question now is whether he will be impeached by the US Congress and Senate or whether impeachment will occur through other means.
For a view of what Obozo thinks of the constitution, there’s an atrocious paper full of postmodernist drivel that Obozo co-authored in which the authors purport to apply Einsteins theory of relativity to constitutional law. The net result of this is the assumption,that the TOTUS is pushing, that the authors of the constitution clearly didn’t mean what they wrote as they would have written something totally different 200 years hence – like the right to state supported health care.
The US is slowly inching towards civil war and the best thing that could happen now would be a 100 m diameter asteroid impacting Washington DC.
Obama’s toast. He burnt too many bridges and is coming across as a Chicago thug. He will fail, the American Constitution will prevail. Obama will be more despised that Carter as a one termer going down the road.
And what of Roe vs Wade? What of various US Supreme Court decisions on civil rights? What happens to them if it is found that the Supreme Court is impotent?
And don’t American soldiers swear allegiance to the Constitution of the US? It’s big stuff that Bambi is tampering with.
The GOP of course is acting stunned as usual.
[Quote]mnd- I disagree; the Constitution is an important and vital US document.[/quote] ET
You seem to be the only one that understands that regardless of the Obama political era that the US Constitution will survive. He is just a piece of dog shit that will be gone before he knows it. The strength of America is the Constitution, and those that trust that “DEEP” connection to the people.. The folks of 2050 will know better than elect fools like Obama, Pelosi and Reed.
Obama learned the Constitution from those that want to avoid the rule of law (Harvard) & Marxist turds. He is a foreign born or raised pretender; He doesn’t understand America. We Americans can endure anything! Bring it on Fool!
My peripheral vision as a Canadian with much U.S.A. winter residency lately, and many years of U.S. business travel has been the two term mandate for the first “black” president would over ride just about all criticism.
However with the late night talk show hosts from Letterman; to Leno; O’Brian taking more one liner shots at Barack Obama I am starting to have second thoughts.
One talk show host might offset the Indepentant voters indoctrinated racial guilt, but three of them is game changer. Cheers;
Is that the same circuit court that threw out the same sex marriage referendum in California when the majority of Californian people were in favour of banning same sex marriages? Makes me go hahaha.
ET, Obama’s behaviour is more evidence in support of your theory of narcissism. This is all happening because he can’t bear to be contradicted. It should also be remembered that every US President who has declared war on the Supreme Court has lost.
What an arrogant man he is.
Is mandatory participation in Social Security constitutional?
Is mandatory participation in Unemployment Insurance constitutional?
Shouldn’t a disciplined taxpayer be able to opt out and self-insure?
Was Bush’s prescription drug programme for seniors constitutional?
Are subsidies to large corporations constitutional?
Is the Federal Reserve constitutional?
Were the bailouts — beginning with Bush — constitutional?
Are Medicare and Medicaid constitutional?
ET, I totally agree, it’s a vital and important document (for history students, and for constitutional law profs to study for new meanings and get-arounds).
All I meant is that it was trashed long, long ago, and, in my view, won’t be un-trashed even if SCOTUS gets its dander up and takes ObamaCare down, which I doubt.
Maobama is securing his place in history…..
He is not replacing Benedict Arnold but certainly making Richard Nixon seem principled and Jimmah Carter seem wise….
[ Well, as Speaker Pelosi said in response to a question that challenged the constitutional authority of Congress to mandate Americans to buy health insurance:
“Are you kidding? Are you kidding?”]
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/14/the-prosecution-of-nancy-pelos
…the constitution is a dead letter.
Parts of it sure seem to be.
The Constitution gives the federal gov’t no power to print paper money. Nor to delegate the printing of paper money. Or to loan money. Yet it’s done all the time.
hussein’s just pissed there’s no muzzies on the SC.
Seems to be a bit of historical revisionism happening on the internet. Decided to take a look at the paper Obozo supposedly authored but it was published by Tribe who seems to be a postmodernist law prof at Harvard.
This paper was easily accessible on the internet a couple of years ago, but seemingly all traces of it have disappeared. The downloadable file was tribe.pdf. I’ve found a copy of the paper but won’t say where until I’ve gotten it out on bittorrent as I’ve never seen as determined an effort to wipe out a particular document off the internet. The title of the paper is:
The curvature of constitutional space: what lawyers can learn from modern physics
Anyone who reads this paper will see why Obozo thinks he’s perfectly reasonable in telling SCOTUS what to do and he probably intends to stack it with justices who think along the same warped lines that he does. (That’s assuming the American people are greater fools than one would expect).
Gosh, mnd, you and I disagree so often! Oh well, we are both nice about it.
As I said, I disagree with your view on the irrelevance of the Constitution. I consider it a basic, active and necessary component of the US operating infrastructure. It sets up the infrastructure and most certainly has not been trashed but is a keystone of the US.
As for your list – as I said, the federal govt has the constitutional right to tax and to ‘provide for the common…general Welfare of the US’. Those items you list are taxes, not individual purchases and that includes Medicare and Medicaid.
What you are ignoring is that the ObamaCare is not a tax but a ‘consumer product’ which the federal govt is saying you must purchase. It is also mandatory while Medicare/Aid is not.
cgh – I agree; Obama cannot handle not being able to Control All People – and he can’t handle that there are parts of the govt out of his control, namely, the Supreme Court. He has already denigrated and sneered at Congress, repeatedly informing us that it is irrelevant and useless. He is not doing the same with the other branch of govt, the SC. As he’s said, being a dictator is preferable. That’s how he likes things: as a dictator.
@ Loki: Here is another link:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF
The author is a comedian, applying general relativity to legal concepts…
“In the same spirit, I continue to maintain my previous objection to any form of dogmatism that closes down discourse about fundamental values within the law. n2 To search the sciences for authoritative answers to legal questions, or any questions for that matter, is misguided. The formalist philosophy which views science as a
“collection” of the “proven” or even of the “provable” is based upon an inappropriate reification. The better vision of science is as a continual and, above all, critical exploration of fruitful insights; the better metaphor is that of a journey.
Science is not so much about proving as it is about improving. To look to the natural sciences for authority — that is, for certainty — is to look for what is not there.”
Hence the relativistic interpretation of the Constitution is coming to a Obama-Nation(tm) bench appointed near you. In short, the Constitution is elastic and we’ll make it stretch to say whatever we the elite want it to say…
Yep, good hunting with that there folks…well you know that “Fast and Furious” 2nd Amendment doesn’t really mean what it says, you know?
Should be a helluva ride to November…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Whose yo mama, Bama?
If Barry is qualified to teach constitutional law at the university level then I am qualified to teach surgery at the Harvard School of Medicine.
Loki @ 11:03 and Hans @ 11:29:
Can you tell us what the evidence is that AliBama is the author?
Thanks
From the header on the article:
“Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School, I am grateful to Rob Fisher, Michael Dorf, Kenneth Chesebro, Gene Sperling, and BARACK OBAMA for their analytic and research assistance and to Professor Gerald Holton (Harvard Physics Department) for his helpful comments. This essay builds upon the 43d Annual Cardozo Lecture I gave before the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on May 11, 1989, 44 RECORD OF THE ASS’N OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 575 (1989).”
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Thanks for the link Hans. Now we’ll see how long this copy remains available.
Nick, there’s the acknowledgments section that Hans posted as well as a number of articles that indicated that Obama was heavily involved in the writing of the paper. Don’t be surprised if people who believe that the meaning of the constitution is obvious based on the words utilized are smeared as “fundamentalists” who are ignorant of the advances in legal thought over the last 2 centuries.
This paper is eerily similar to Hitler’s publication of Mein Kampf and people being astounded when he actually did what he had written in the book over a decade earlier.
Is anybody taking bets on which conservative Supreme will meet an untimely, unfortunate, and extremely accidental death before the end of June?
@ fiddle at April 3, 2012 10:45 PM
“The Constitution gives the federal gov’t no power to print paper money……
True, but the Federal Reserve prints the money and controls the economy and they are a private institution.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
Obama – the democratically elected dictator.
I don’t understand all the legalities of this, but The Wunda certainly isn’t being very political here.