I'm here, we don't need this old thing anymore.
President Obama took the opportunity today to show America just how great of a constitutional scholar he really is. He claimed that the individual mandate, the main point of contention sitting before the Supreme Court is constitutional. His reasoning? The healthcare bill was passed by Congress.
That was it in a nutshell.
Obama received a law degree from Harvard in 1991. John Harvard must be spinning in the grave. In 375 years that might be the dumbest thing ever to come out of the mouth of a Harvard graduate.
There are so many things fundamentally wrong with Obama’s thinking that I find it hard to pick one single starting point. Like trying to find the first brush stroke in Monet’s Water Lilies, I don’t think it can be done.
If all that was required to prove constitutionality of any law was the fact that it was passed into law then the Supreme Court would cease to have purpose. They rarely take up cases involving laws that do not get enacted into law.
Yes, Mr. President, the Supreme Court can overturn a duly constituted and passed law that they found to violate the Constitution of the United States. As a constitutional scholar, you above all others should understand that the Constitution is THE law of the land that all other laws are measured against.
Most of all, in that one sentence Obama spells out exactly why the Supreme Court must rule against the Healthcare Bill. Obama believes that Government can do anything it wishes as long as it passes a law to that effect. Obama believes that if a law is passed that it is of higher importance than the Constitution based on its passage alone. No other discussion is needed, the Supreme Court is meaningless. The Justices need to show that the Constitution matters, and that the Supreme Court will decide what is and what is not constitutional. Not the President, not a singular political party.
We’ve known for a long time that Obama has problems with the Constitution. He called it a flawed document in that it placed limits on what government can do. Had Obama showed up to class occasionally, he might have learned, that the flaw he describes is actually the beauty of the document and why America is exceptional. Three branches of government, not a monarchy, certainly not a dictatorship. A Government, of the People, and by the People, was enacted to protect the rights of citizens, not to make new rights as it seemed fit, not to take rights from some and give extra rights to others, not to abridge rights in anyway. Not to redefine rights as the current social climate might dictate. The document was to tie the hands of the federal government and bind it to certain enumerated powers.
Obama doesn’t want his hands tied, doesn’t want to be bound to a document that defines his powers. Obama desires limitless powers and a Supreme Court decision against his signature legislation could crush his hopes of reelection. So what does a thug from Chicago do? Points a finger and makes a threat.
Are Supreme Court Justices unelected? They are confirmed, via vote, by those who are elected by the people (the Senate). In a way, they are elected the same way a President is elected through the Electoral College, by proxy.
I’ll give in to Obama’s little game for the time being. Now it is my turn.
Who is not elected? Czars aren’t elected, Obama had or has 38 of them.
The head of the EPA isn’t elected. The EPA just passed regulations that effectively end the construction of any new coal fired electrical plants. The American people can no longer expand the use of electricity produced by the most abundant source of energy that America has.
The head of the Dept of the Interior and the head of the Dept of Energy aren’t elected. Permits for oil exploration and drilling have been all but torn up under the Obama administration.
I could go on. Obama gives very little credit for the intelligence of average people, then again he was elected so I can understand his low regard for the country.
I on the other hand have eternal hope for America’s ability to learn from its mistakes.
A course correction is needed and in November 2012 we take back the wheel.
Good job! Keep it up! I hope you will be blessed with growing attendance and membership and great effectivenes. Thanks for all you are trying to do. Ol’ Roy, Davie.
Ob’s pompous ego will be his downfall. A natural trait for someone manufactured. During the course of the election, I expect, we will see the real ______. When he wanders off the teleprompter, what he says is very telling and significantly different than what the public is used to hearing.
Even Democrates have lost jobs, homes and confidence. Even Democrates remember the way things used to done and the proud history of this country. Even Democrates must feel that they can make some decisions for themselves and retain some personal dignity. Even Democrates have children that they love dearly, work to protect them and wish for their secure future.
Security is knowing the laws of the system and obeying them for the benefit of all. Laws that don’t change to benefit even our leaders. Learn a lesson Ob.
Mike, You’re spot on . . . as usual. It is incomprehensible to me that a US President could make such an ignorant and arrogant argument: It’s consititutional, *because* Congress passed a law.
Excellent flow in your written argument Michael. If only President Obama could apply the same “No Judicial Activist” argument to an Attorney General who takes the lives of our police officers by directly handing the enemy guns.
You have hit the nail on the head with this article Michael..Keep up the Good Work..Every article that shines the light of Truth on just what his agenda is will also will bring us a step closer to him not being reelected.!
Michael, I agree with you on just about everything except the part about Mr. Obama being a constitutional scholar. If he is a constitutional scholar I will drink the cool aid. SC justice Ginsburg probably agrees with him that they would prefer a different constitution that gives the government all the power it wants.
One, it goes to show you how far Harvard has dropped in educating people. Two, here is more proof against affirmative action.
Yes, Harvard, $120K for a roll of toilet paper with a degree written on it.
While dean of Harvard Law Elena Kagan did not require study of the US. Constitution but of International and Foreign Law. Such moments of genius gets one fast tracked to the Supreme Court. At least it does in the bizarre world of the Obama Presidency.
How else do you get European results but to stack the court with those who find fault with our Constitution and long for other documents that shift the balance of power to the government and away from the individual.
Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor. All that is missing are the black pointed hats, 3 brooms, a large cauldron and a few eyes of newt. Ginsberg was there prior to Obama, like something found in an attic of a house you just bought. You hope you can get some kind of value for it before it falls apart. Sotomayor was touted for her unique story. 300 million people in America, we all have unique stories, we’re not all cut out for black robes. Personally I’ll put Clarence Thomas’ unique story up against Sotomayor’s story any day of the week.
That leaves Kagan as the tri-fecta of the bunch. Placed on the Supreme Court for one reason and one reason only. To make sure that Obamacare passed. Her legal background was mediocre at best and having her on the Supreme Court is an embarrassment to everyone else there. But the Progressives must have what they must have. If not by consent, then by nudging. If not by nudging, then by deceit. It’s their way, they know no other. “We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work then we use the persuasion of power.” — Andy Stern, (former) President of SEIU