Professor Obama Gets an F
Last week President Obama made some rather shocking comments at a press conference regarding the Supreme Court's deliberation on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. His comments belie a grasp of constitutional concepts so lacking that perhaps the University of Chicago Law School should offer a refund to any students "taught" constitutional law by then-Professor Obama!
He said, "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will 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." It almost sounds as if he believes the test of constitutionally is whether a majority approves of the bill, as opposed to whether the legislation lies within one of the express powers of the federal government. In fact, the very design of the Constitution, with power split amongst two branches of the legislature which write the laws, an executive who administers the laws and an independent judiciary which resolves disputes regarding meaning of the laws, was designed to thwart popular will and preserve liberty.
President Obama continued in his comments, "For years, what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
President Obama seems to misunderstand that the criticism of an activist judiciary is not that it is overturning unconstitutional federal laws, but instead that it is usurping the authority to intervene in areas, such as abortion, where the Constitution reserves authority to the states. In fact, upholding clearly unconstitutional laws such as Obamacare because the justices bowed to the "will of the people" or believed the individual mandate was good social policy could be considered an example of judicial activism.
The founders never intended the judiciary to have the last word on whether or not a law is constitutional. The judiciary is equal to the Congress and the President, not superior. Representatives, senators, presidents and judges all have an independent duty to determine a law's constitutionality. The founders would be horrified by the attitude of many lawmakers that they can pass whatever laws they want and federal judges will then determine whether or not the law is constitutional.
Additionally, state governments have the authority to protect their citizens from federal laws that threaten liberty. If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, I hope state legislators will exercise their powers to pass legislation allowing their citizens to opt-out of the national health care plan.
Unfortunately, even many of my colleagues who correctly argue Obamacare's unconstitutionality support the President when he asserts the power to send troops into battle without a declaration of war, or have citizens indefinitely detained and even assassinated on little more than his own authority. Other of my colleagues not only cheer the unconstitutional monstrosity of Obamacare, but support the President's actions to defy the Senate's appointment powers, and legislate by executive order.
Even worse, some members will only challenge a president's unconstitutional actions if the president is from a different political party. The defeat of Obamacare in the courts would provide a stark reminder that the limits of government are set by the Constitution, not the will of the president, Congress, or even the Supreme Court. However, the victory would be short-lived as long as the legislative branch refuses to do its duty to abide by the constitutional limits and exercises its powers to ensure the other two branches do likewise.
Posted by victorbarney on 04/19/12 03:08 PM
Ron, Obama calls it using the "democratic process," and just what he promised our more verbally erudite female sex when he promised them that he wanted to "fundamentally transform our government" into Marxism, "Anti-Christ" by definition. The MARXIST MANIFESTO calls it the "democratic process!" I wonder if that's the line that the Serpent used on Eve? I mean, they are the more verbally comprehensive sex and all, right? I also wonder if it may have anything to do with the name "EVIL?" Just saying...
Posted by amanfromMars on 04/18/12 02:51 AM
"Expect more intimidation and bullying, and perhaps even recess appointments to Supreme Court to achieve strategic objectives of his socialist ideology following the precepts of his Master teacher, Alinsky; ... " ... . Posted by Joelg on 04/18/12 01:04 AM
Surely you mean his rabbid fascist ideology, Joelg, for such is it undeniably modelled on. It does everyone a great disservice to be coy and circumspect on such matters, for then is one easily misled to believe in something which doesn't exist and that allows a quite perfect stealth to a hidden agenda which is hidden because it would garner no universal support because of its less than equitable and fair intent, which in extremis would be popularly labelled as diabolical rather than saintly.
Posted by Joelg on 04/18/12 01:04 AM
The difference between Ron Paul, Obama, and the others is that Ron Paul believes in the Republic and the Constitution being dominant over the varied passions of the moment like Obamacare, Socialism, the Neo-con agenda, Neo-colonialism, the American Empire, Fiat Money, etc.
This is not Obama's first public swipe at the Supreme Court (most notable was at State of Union speech). Expect more intimidation and bullying, and perhaps even recess appointments to Supreme Court to achieve strategic objectives of his socialist ideology following the precepts of his Master teacher, Alinsky; particularly if a second Obama term. I think this prelude to a second term overthrow of what is left of Constitutional government (won't be much left after 8 years of Bush II and 8 years of Obama).
Country seems crazier all the time. Watching Hilary acting like the Queen Mother telling her minions in North Korea what to do. The King Obama and Queen Hilary show. I sense a repeat of the forced opening of Japan and China in the nineteenth century, except North Korea is better prepared and strongly seems to want to preserve its culture. Maybe some international deal cutting on Syria and Iran, in exchange for who knows what. Definitely City of London has its Washington branch office in the forefront, which makes sense given where the resources are. Interesting times.
Posted by DwightMann on 04/17/12 07:50 PM
This is why RP is such an important PAUL-i-tician. . .
I will be seeing you in Philly this Sunday. . .
RP in 2012
Posted by oldman67 on 04/17/12 03:34 PM
We have a president who suffers from a Narcissistic Aersonality Disorder and a congress who,the only thing the majority are interested in is keeping their jobs.Many who, after leaving congress go to work as lobbyist for the same people who they supported and funded as well as helped pass laws benefical to the corporations these lobbyist represented.Unfortunately for America, today both in our federal courts and Supreme Court "judicial activitism" is being practiced.Our founders expected the Supreme to base laws as to weather they were constitutional or not and not based on their own opinions. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano points out many of these decisions by the Supreme Court and how they are unconstitutional in his book, LIES THE GOVERNMENT TOLD YOU Myth, Power and Deceptions in American History.The Department of Justice should be called the Department of In justice.Today, you are guilty until proven innocent. In his book, A NATION of SHEEP the judge shows why America is in the shape it is in. The people are a big part of the reason.
Posted by victorbarney on 04/17/12 02:03 PM
RON PAUL, DO I PRAY THAT YOU CAN GET THE "WOMEN"(GATHERER'S) VOTE AWAY FROM OBAMA, BUT... p.s. REGUARDLESS, YOU GOT MY VOTE!
Posted by jsharris1229 on 04/17/12 02:03 PM
1st, I think it's fair to say that Ron Paul must be careful about what he says and how he says it. Any misstep will be pounced on by the traitors in the media.
With that in mind, I think it's pretty clear that Obama understands the Constitution, treats it with contempt and was issuing a thinly veiled threat to the Justices.
While I'm still naive on some things, I've gotten much better at reading between the lines. The fact is, there are evil people in this world. These evil people are parents to some, the children of others - in other words, they are 'ordinary' people. And one of them is Barrack Obama.
Posted by Ratico on 04/17/12 11:37 AM
Great artical. Thank you.
We need to inform our representatives that it is time to stand up or get out. But they must know our will. Only by sharing the truth will our collective will be true.
Posted by kenn on 04/17/12 10:37 AM
Ron,,, I think we can all agree the the constitutionality of law is the furthest thing on the minds of government bosses.
Congress has been put in its place by DOD Panetta so, time to sit back and see if the Judicial shows any more intestinal fortitude than the legislative,,, which shouldn't require a lot...
Posted by rossbcan on 04/17/12 07:28 AM
Obama is just a minor pawn, puppet, figure-head, lightening-rod for the "forces of the dark side" (Gees, NOT skin pigmentation). His function is to rationalize and deflect the blame when SHTF inevitably happens and, another pawn, with a different set of rationalizations (for the same Nazi ACTIONS) is annointed.
The entire legal "profession" and rationalizing sub-parasite classes get an F (final court of public opinion) for rationalizing away their basic function of predator control in civilization (keeping the peace by controlling aggressors, allowing productivity) with the subjective INTERPRETATION that this requires them to be "master predator" (barbarians). This requires maintaining strategic denial of the "rule of law" and destroying all (shoot the messenger) who insist on "rule of law", and civilized standards of mutual coexistance as opposed to arbitrary "rule of decreeing man":
Click to view link
Since THEY reject all but predations as "means of survival" (goal seeking), THEY will not be dislodged by fact based, reasonable methods. But, dislodged THEY must and therefore will be. THEY, by the costs/consequences of THEIR own choices and actions, are mainly doing the dislodging themselves, as the unseen hand is on an inevitable trajectory from aviodance to outright defiance. Just a bit of minor nudging (civil disobedience) is required to help THEM put the final nails in THEIR own coffins. THINK about it:
Click to view link
Posted by vly on 04/17/12 05:02 AM
Ron Paul is so simple. Obama is not even legally in office. Such a bought and owned stooge of the Federal Reserve owners is doing what he is paid to do. Somewhere down the line he will be made a martyr by the Bankers in order to institute Marshall law & that will be that. Ron Paul merely goes by the Constitution, while Obama, during his early political career said the Constitution "is too out of date" because "it hampers the redistribution of wealth"