Obama Weighs In On Possible Mandate Ruling With Typical Pomposity
It’s hard to believe this guy was ever a Constitutional teacher…..well, maybe the constitution of Russia or Venezuala. But, then, it’s hard to believe someone with so little real world experience who authored no legislation would be elected President
(Fox News) President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.
“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,” Obama said.
Unprecedented would be creating a “right” to kill the unborn. But not overturning laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional, which is partly what the Supreme Court’s mandate is, per that pesky Constitution.
As to “a strong majority”, it passed by a whopping 10 votes on a party line vote in the Senate, thanks to what would be considered bribes out here in the private sector. The vote in the House was 219-212, the bare majority needed to pass, with 34 Democrats joining every Republican in voting against. Just because Congress votes in a law doesn’t make it Constitutional.
Red State points out
Look, I’m not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with anyone, but the fact remains that since that decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been “unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without serious challenge ever since.
The court has shot down many federal, state, and local laws many times. Consider from 1935, Schechter v. United States, in which “The court unanimously invalidated the National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that it delegated excessive authority to the president and regulated businesses that operated wholly within individual states.”
Anyhow, Obama continued on with his bloviations
“I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said, describing the law as “constitutional.”
Hard to believe this guy has even read the Constitution, much less taught the subject. But, then, for Liberals, the constitution is a living, breathing document which should be stretched and changed to fit the narrative.
“It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist,'” he said in a statement. “Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals’ purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional.”
If Obama wants to campaign against the Supreme Court, if they invalidate, at a minimum, the Mandate, well, go for it, Champ. That won’t end well.
Facebook60.8kTwitter107Email0 Close-quarters combat just got a little more deadly with the introduction of this gas-injection knife. It allows you to inject compressed gasses into whatever you stab, effectively blowing it...Read More
FacebookTwitterEmail On one hand the administration and its cohorts in the Democrat majority want to use the BP oil spill
FacebookTwitterEmail No wonder the White House is pugnaciously “not particularly interested” in the Emailgate scandal, even though it involves evident