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.”
mnd, ET:
The distinction between mandated health insurance purchase and SS/Medicare/UI, etc., is the former is forcing individuals to purchase something from a third party, while the latter are all purchases from the government. Once that door is cracked, who knows what future governments will do, including Bambam’s? Must buy made-in-America solar panels, for “energy security” (and to avoid any more Solyndra/Solar Trusts, of course)? Must buy education from (carefully selected) purveyors?
God hopes the Supremes quashes this. I for one won’t be surprised if, when they do, one of the four right wingers meets with an unfortunate accident, and Bambam stacks the court as a result.
Just shows all the good pot is to be found at Harvard.
Hans @ and Loki @:
Thanks. Does that mean that Gene Sperling is also the author? He is cited too, along with several others as having helped. And, the stated provenance of the paper includes a presentation by Tribe.
The more reasonable hypothesis is that BO assisted. That’s consistent with another reasonable hypothesis which is that BO never wrote anything. Nothing. Got the presidency of the Harvard Law Review on the basis of nothing; got a lectureship, not a professorship, at Chicago on the basis of nothing; was offered tenure at Chicago Law on the basis of nothing. Etc. Oh, did I mention he’s black?
True, but the Federal Reserve prints the money and controls the economy and they are a private institution.
The Fed gets that power from federal legislation. They don’t have the power to delegate anyone to print paper money. Not in the Constitution.
KevinB – yes, the distinction you’ve made is exactly right; it’s the govt requiring that you purchase a product from a Third Party, and that Third Party having no authority over the content of what you purchase or how you use it.
PJM has a succinct outline:
“Obama’s alternative was not “individual responsibility,” but a government mandate compelling purchases of policies from insurance companies unable to decline risks or limit benefits, with health care to be micro-managed by an unelected board in Washington, deciding everything from end-of-life care to contraceptives for students. The program was styled as a regulation of commerce, but it was really the creation of a new governmental program with every person in the country required to participate.
The Congressional Budget Office noted that an individual mandate “would be an unprecedented form of federal action” since the government “has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
ET: Actually we agree A LOT. Because you’re heavy artillery here one wishes merely to nip at the edges, as it were; to try and score some points.
Again, I’m not negative on the constitution nor do I consider it irrelevant. All I’ve said is that it has been corrupted — irredeemably in my view. And the greatest source of this corruption is the commerce clause which has been tortured to death.
AFTERTHOUGHT:
This battle is best seen as a political, not a constitutional one. The judiciary is pushing back on Chavez Obama’s open and loud threats against its power. If it wins (and I hope it does), I won’t be seeing it as any kind of constituional restoration!
The political system in the US today bears almost no resemblance to what was envisioned by the founding fathers and most few Americans look to government not as a (negative) rights protector but a dispenser of goodies.
Hey Mr. Obama, our Supreme Court regularly over turns the will of the elected government and the desires of the majority of the citizens, so why can’t yours.
P.S. If you don’t like what your Court is planning to do, we’ll trade.
Holder & Obama “contempt of Court” Letter…The public argument obstructed by BS meaningless legalize crap. Yes you can, but no you can’t.
Obama LIED to the American PPL, he needs to resign, or apologize in common language everyone understands. Chicago punk threats to the Court are inappropriate.
http://nation.foxnews.com/eric-holder/2012/04/05/read-attorney-general-holders-letter-5th-circuit-court-appeals-here
Apparently, Obama’s really concerned about APPOINTED SCOTUS judges. The thing is, he’s appointed two of them. Huh?
This Manchurian Candidate is careening out of control. Good Lord, deliver us!