Last Updated:July 28 @ 12:13 pm

Salvato: A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution

By Frank Salvato

In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.

During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,”questioning 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. At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.

Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”

There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist. Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.

Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:

“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management...”

The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”

Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.

Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.

So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.” The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just as soon spit on the Constitution than try to understand it. We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.

---

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.orgMr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.6/10 (173 votes cast)
Salvato: A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution, 9.6 out of 10 based on 173 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

109 Comments

  1. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    April 3, 2012 @ 8:09 am

    Apparently one man’s judicial activism is another’s Constitutional correctness in a radically divided nation where the emerging population is no longer taught its actual Constitutional heritage, but a remanufactured socialist version by community organizing Self proclaimed “Constitutional Scholar” manipulators of American Justice.

    This presidential fop who insulted and dressed down the Supreme court members in front of the nation in a state of the union address as if they were his students in a Constitutional class of socialist revision,,,,,does he really think those rational thinking non-indoctrinated even quasi-Conservative Supremes sitting on the fence on Obamacare are not going to remember when the critical vote is cast? Apparently judicial activism is only good when worked by liberals to tie up justice and obviate the will of the majority of the people in confused appeals court obfuscations and delays, but becomes a threat to liberalism when the final court of appeals is reached and the true objective of obfuscation and division is revealed and they get called out for the subverters of justice that they are.

    I cannot wait to see the look on his face when the men in black come for him to lead him by the hand into the Constitutional woodshed for the good Constitutional spanking he deserves. Maybe then it will dawn on him that he should have spend his short time in office healing the nation in economic crisis instead of manufacturing one more liberal progressive faux healthcare crisis that he should have let go to waste. The sooner this man and his party of socialist activist disruption are removed from office, the sooner all Americans can again lower their guard and go back to the business of raising their families in peace and renewed prosperity.

    Just how can there be peace of mind for American citizenry when they constantly have to look over their shoulders to see which way the next Democrat socialist activist attack on our Constitutional freedoms will come from? Time to just vote them all out of power.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (92 votes cast)
    • drewscoComment by drewsco
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

      My friend, you do realize that you are talking about humans (The Supreme Ct. Justices), not gods?

      You act as if they are so superior and immune from imperfection…….give me a break.

      Remember, unlike some of his predecessors, Barack Obama has credibility to criticize the temperment and judgement of these justices.

      He was also trained at an ivy league law school just like most of those justices and he too excelled at the top of his class like most of them and he also taught constitutional law.

      I know you would like to ignore those tidbits of facts, but I thought it was neccessary to put your rant into proper perspective.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (39 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

      drewsco

      The only Justice that Obama seems to have picked up about is the so called social justice.
      The make-up of the legal experts of this ivy league law school is becoming a bit suspect, when you consider their political views and activities. Not all of them, but quite a few. My guess is our President maybe had a preference for those Professors that could help him more becoming a community organizer!
      Have mercy for an ivy league school where the interpretation of constitutional law deviates so much from the original intent of our Constitution.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (26 votes cast)
    • drewscoComment by drewsco
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

      agent007:

      I fail to see your point-if there is one. I’m simply asserting that President Obama has every right to criticize the supreme ct. Justices.

      Some have said that he’s being arrogant.

      That assertion is disingenuous and subtly suggests that the is acting out of his station in life.

      President Bush often criticized Supreme Ct. Justices when he disagreed with thier rulings. In fact he often criticized David Souter very harshly. He called him a dissapointment and even stated that he regreted the day he nominated him.

      Hmmm, was George H. bush being arrogant and acting above his station in life?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.1/5 (24 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

      drewsco, ,,the problem here is that 4 of the nine Supreme Court Justices Plus Obama think THEY are Gods and that our rights come from them and the state. Had they an ounce or modicum of knowledge of our founders or Constitution they would realize that men come together to form governments to do ONLY for them collectively what individuals cannot accomplish for themselves as Individuals. With Liberals however is is always do for the individual what benfits the collective whose rights always take precedence. Franklin warned that a self-governing government required men with the ability to govern SELF, namely not have to live off the means of their neighbor.

      Jefferson warned;

      “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government. So let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so that the second will not become the legal version of the first”

      Obama and his 4 Democrat appointed “Feel Good” Supremes would unleash the criminals who live off the means of others and steal form the productive people of society as well as the truly needy who get part of their share resistributed to the slackers who are able to produce but who think they are entitled.,,,,who also vote Democrat every time. Obama and his Healthcare are prima facie examples of the second (Government) becoming legal examples of the first (Criminals)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (35 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

      drewsco:

      The point is that Obama is not making his statements as a legal expert, but as a politician.

      And given his record of making misleading statements and promises, I give his “legal opinion” about our SC ZERO credibility!

      And I would assume that Obama’s arrogance is not in question here anymore is it? :)

      Bush, like Obama, and like many other Presidents before them unfortunately, have appointed SC justices with political motivation, instead of the intent to have the best professsional legal defenders of our Constitution nominated and appointed. Sad and we are seeing how divided the SC has become along political (not legal) lines!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (23 votes cast)
    • drewscoComment by drewsco
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

      inluminatuo:

      The first sentence of your comment gave me a chuckle. (I may be inclined to partly agree with you).

      However, your hyperbole doesn’t hold any merit.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.1/5 (17 votes cast)
    • atticusComment by atticus
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

      Drewsco,
      Where is Obama’s credibility to attack the Supreme Court? Because he was a lecturer at Chicago? (NOT a professor!) And I am not sure there is any proof that Obama excelled at the top of his class. If so, please post where this can be found… and please do not quote a syncophant as your proof.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (30 votes cast)
    • passthewordComment by passtheword
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

      To Drewsco:

      Prove anything about Obama’s so-called tenure at an Ivy league school. Top of his class, professor, etc. He sealed his records. Most likely because his grades are worse than Bush’s.

      He has no legal briefs published etc…. He is not the whiz you think he is and when out of office the liberal media will turn on him. We will then know the truth…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (29 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      April 3, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

      drewsco,

      You can not prove any of the supportive comments you made about Obama unless you can show us his school transcripts and his employment records. I challenge you to do that quickly because the population has been asking to see them for over 3 years now and Obama has spent over $2 million keeping them secret, so I really doubt that you have any of them.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (27 votes cast)
    • VeeDubComment by VeeDub
      April 4, 2012 @ 8:35 am

      Drewsco: You wrote “I know you would like to ignore those tidbits of facts, but I thought it was necessary to put your rant into proper perspective.”

      Where is your evidence to prove as a FACT that obama excelled at the top of his class in ANY subject? You stated it’s a FACT, so prove this is not just your own hyperbole!

      You wrote: “Remember, unlike some of his predecessors, Barack Obama has credibility to criticize the temperament and judgement of these justices.”

      Seriously??? Where did this credibility come from? Obama lemmings like you? Your hyperbole asserts that simply by going to a certain school a person has credibility??

      Harvard Law School, where book theory and unearned opinion so often carry great currency, yet these “great achievers” are often out of their league in the real world.

      Again, you said this is a FACT, so give us your source to prove your statement and not just hyperbole from someone who will never admit obama is wrong on anything.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  2. newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:06 am

    Needless to say, this president is way out of control, and is becoming so out of touch with the reality of his own importance, that he’s starting to meltdown with his hubris.

    He literally castigated the Supreme Court referring to them in so many words as being insignificant, unelected officials who had not the right to cast aside his law. He also warned that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of “judicial activism.” It’s more than obvious that he believes that the courts might not decide in his favor so he’s come up with some kind of game plan to go against the courts if they have the “audacity” to discard his mandate.

    It appears as though he is going to play on the public, in particular women and Hispanics in order to increase this class warfare tactic which he seems to believe would force the courts to see things his way. Rep. James Clyburn says President Obama should run against the Supreme Court if Obamacare gets overturned which is an indication of plan “B.” Although, I have not yet heard racism come into play here — I am expecting it to happen.

    Hopefully this man’s dictatorial, pomposity, along with his political schemes and tactics will stiffen the backs of these judges to a point where their spines will be as hard as steel. If this court caves in to his pressure — it’s all over.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (78 votes cast)
    • CharlieComment by vietnamvet
      April 3, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

      If Obama was right in saying that unelected jurists have no right overturning laws formulated by democratically elected legislatures, then his pet lawyers in the Justice Department have no business interfering with the legislation passed by duly elected state governmental bodies … such as Arizona!

      Taken further, no federal judge (because none of them are elected) can have ANY say over ANY law passed democratically.

      The absurdity of this last statement shows the absurdity of Obama being taken as ‘informed’ … on ANY subject.

      Oh, and Drewsco …
      Obama was a ‘teacher’s aid’ … nothing more.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (18 votes cast)
  3. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:14 am

    Unless we as a Nation concentrate, move and vote to a set of economic policies aimed at growing our economy, instead of wasting time promoting bankrupting healthcare social agenda’s, this may be our first economic recovery in history that fails to see us return to long term prosperity. The poison of the Democrat socialist offer of the immediate gratification is killing our chances as a nation to succeed and prosper in the long term. It is time the Supreme Judges of the land step in and set right the course of our ship of state and return the power to the people as originally intended, not the government who has spent the past 50 years usurping it.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (66 votes cast)
    • newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
      April 3, 2012 @ 9:26 am

      Amen! This might be our last chance.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (50 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

      Inluminatuo:
      I completely agree with your sentiments, but it will have to be “we the people” instead of our SC judges to right this ship. As I understand it, the SC can only act on legal suits presented to them, by determining their constitutionality.
      It will take more than that to correct what’s gone wrong I’m afraid.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
  4. Dingbat36Comment by Dingbat36
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:21 am

    Obama binLying understands the Constitution equally as well as anyone in the country. He just doesn’t want to abide by it, he evidently thinks some people are far more important than others. He scolded the SCOTUS again, calling them activist if they strike down his totally unconstitutional health (un)care law. Has this man done ANYTHING during his term of office which is in compliance with the Constitution? I THINK NOT!

    I am far more concerned with Presidential “activism” than I am with anything the SCOTUS could do.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (61 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      April 3, 2012 @ 11:01 am

      To Obama, our etched in stone Constitution is to be morphed into a living document that can be infected with the virus of socailist ideology, morphed into a Frankensteinian monster in size and scope and then trained like a lap dog to serve the Democrat party.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (38 votes cast)
  5. VeeDubComment by VeeDub
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:26 am

    Once again we see the “liberal” usage of some terms that need to be changed.

    Progressives are socialists! Liberals are socialists! Democrats are socialists! Call them what they are!

    The leadership of the party formerly known as the democrat party, is socialist, and has been so for decades. Their agenda is a socialist agenda with the ultimate goal of destroying capitalism (America that excelled for over 200 years) and ushering in their vision of “Utopia”. One needs no more proof than obamacare and the efforts to bankrupt America by this administration.

    The party formerly known as the democrat party now openly tramples the Constitution, incites hate and divisiveness. Name calling and labels are a standard operating procedure for those people.

    They consistently work to keep the black community slaves to the government check as part of their plan to bankrupt our Nation. No longer do they work behind closed doors. They are now “in your face” socialist activists.

    Ipso facto; any person who votes for, supports, donates to, or defends the actions of the party formerly known as the democrat party is directly supporting socialism. You can be an honest hard working democrat with the best of intentions, but if you contribute, in any manner, to those who have taken control of your party, then you are blindly helping them destroy America and are supporting socialism, whether you wish to admit it or not.

    It’s just that many of those who blindly support the party formerly known as the democrat party, (simply because they think they are still democrats) either have no clue, just don’t care, or are ensuring they keep getting those nice big “government” checks. “The goal of socialism is communism.” V.I. Lenin

    (1) http://news.yahoo.com/GOP-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget-013519895.HTML
    (2) http://www.hourofthetime.com/soccon.htm

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (35 votes cast)
  6. matoComment by Jackee
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:46 am

    I believe that anyone who says Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, doesnt understand this or that, is stupid, incompetent, etc, is grossly misjudging this tyrant. He 100% DOES understand the constitution. He 100% disregards it and will in all likelihood overturn it given another 4 years in our House. He and his handlers know EXACTLY what they are doing, make no mistake about it. I wish I didn’t believe this myself, but I don’t know what more proof he and his ilk can give us.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (52 votes cast)
  7. Peter NyikosComment by Peter Nyikos
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:51 am

    On top of everything else, it wasn’t “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” that passed Obamacare. Obama had to strong-arm Congressman Stupak to get him to end his opposition to the mandate, otherwise the whole package would have gone down in defeat. And it was a relative handful of principled Democrats who changed their vote, all on the strength of an executive order by Obama that is increasingly seen to be a sham.

    One of those Democrats, a woman who was defeated for re-election, recently said she would have voted against Obamacare if she had known how the conscience rights of those opposed to abortifacients would be trampled on.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (38 votes cast)
    • drewscoComment by drewsco
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

      You’re trying to make apples out of oranges.

      Regardless of the partisanship, the Patient Protection and Affordability Act was passed by a DEMOCRATICALLY elected Congress, whose memebers were elected by us the citizens.

      In essesence, thier votes were representative of their constituents.

      I find it ironic how conservatives love to cling to the principles of democracy and then ignore them when they work against thier interests.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.2/5 (21 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

      drewsco

      You miss the point: A STRONG MAJORITY was claimed, which didn’t seem to be there, and definitely has disappeared completely now.
      Especially now that we have seen a little bit of what was in this Bill.
      Double cost estimates and more and more of the promised benefits seem to evaporate as we are getting closer to implementation.
      Also, remember that the USA is not just intended to be a democracy but a republic, and that a Supreme Court is an essential element of our form of government!
      Regardless of the fact that this SC has been infiltrated too much by politically driven decision makers instead of pure LEGAL EXPERTS to test legal cases against our CONSTITUTION

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (20 votes cast)
    • drewscoComment by drewsco
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

      agent007:

      I’ll concede to your point about the strong majority. However, I still maintain the point that Obama has the credibilty as a legal expert to offer his criticism.

      Because if he didn’t, you and I both know that his opponents would make issue of him having a lack of intellectual credibility.

      The fact that no one has is something to consider.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.4/5 (17 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

      Again Drewsco:

      Although Obama studied and even lectured in law, that is irrelevant.
      His statements have no significance as legal opinion, but are pure political statements.
      Furthermore, given his apparent interpretation of our Constitution and his “love for our country”, I personally give him ZERO credibility at this point. Too many words that don’t match the actions or even truthful facts.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (20 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

      drewsco:
      You point out that the Health Care bill was passed by a democratically elected Congress. However, you fail to point out all the bullying, arm-twisting, and bribery which was necessary to get a sufficient number of votes in Congress. The bill finally passed by seven votes, and a lot of congressmen knew they were voting for the bill at their own peril, as they would have to face their constituents at some point, who were opposed to the bill by a majority which was never less than 55%. The passage of this bill involved some of the most underhanded series of ploys ever seen, including a little known tactic known as “Deem and Pass”, otherwise known as the Slaughter solution, after the appropriately named Congresswoman who proposed this tactic. This rarely used rule would have allowed the bill to pass even without a majority by “deeming” it passed by the Speaker of the House. Obamacare is rooted in corruption and deserves to meet its appropriate fate, which is its total destruction.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (20 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

      Drewsco, anyone who has read the constitution understands that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution devolve to the states and the people. Just where do you and you Constitutional astute ( Or is that ) President find it anywhere that the State has a right to compel a free people to buy anything? A 3rd grader will get this one right as you will soon see when the thinking rational Supreme Judges who know how to read not re-write our Constitution give the final judgement. Obama is an example of a Liberally infected Liberal educate beyond his ability to comprehend or he would not be making war upon the American people and their economy promoting a healthcare boon-doogle the majority does not want and realizes they can never afford.

      As far a passing with a large democrat majority, God in his infinite wisdom struck down Ted Kennedy to kill this disaster in the senate, but the creative Democrat devils bought and bribed the Cornhusker Senators and others to squeak it by. The elections of 2010 spoke loudly as to how the people responded.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (21 votes cast)
    • KMcCComment by KMcC
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

      drewsco, not only did Obama illegally twist and threaten 3 different Senator with sever financial federal reprecussions, he had Nancy Pelosi use a Screwed up rule to NOT VOTE For Approval by the House. The Law in its current form was NEVER VOTE ON, much less Approved by the HOUSE. Chew on that part of Congressional disdain by the Demo’s and Obama. A real president would have sent this Bill back to congress and requested a true Vote of approval!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (19 votes cast)
    • passthewordComment by passtheword
      April 3, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

      Drewsco:

      What did and do the polls ay about the people’s opinion of Obamascare???

      Representing their constituents, really???

      It does not matter if they passed it. What matters is, is it constitutionally correct.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
    • gimmesometruthComment by gimmesometruth
      April 3, 2012 @ 4:11 pm

      Yes Drewsco, and Satan knows the Bible front and back, but quotes it for the purpose of deceiving his victims for his purposes to separate them from God. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to give generations a pathway to freedom IF they were willing to invest in it’s success. Just as God does not have grandchildren, Freedom is bestowed one generation at a time. A pen can be used to write the Declaration of Independence, or it can be thrust through your eye. The intent is in your heart.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (13 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      April 3, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

      “In essesence, thier votes were representative of their constituents.

      I find it ironic how conservatives love to cling to the principles of democracy and then ignore them when they work against thier interests.”

      Drewsco, I am wondering if you are really that ignorant or just wanting to argue. The people voting for Obamacare were NOT representing their constituents because the bill was extremely unpopular and was approved in backroom deals. Democrats stopped holding town hall meetings with their constituents because they couldn’t face the heat.

      Only liberals and uninformed “cling to the principles of democracy”. We are a REPUBLIC subject to the rule of law, not the whims of a group who think the majority should always rule and to hell with the rest. The fact that Obama is publicly ridiculing the Supreme Court and trying to publicly intimidate them makes it obvious that he is trying to stir up another protest from the zombies who think they can sway the Supreme Court’s ruling which should be based ONLY on the legality of the law in light of the Constitution.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

      Does anybody else notice the similarity between the race-baiting tactics in the Trayvon Martin case and the tactics used now by attacking the SC by Obama?

      Bna42 is correct in signaling that he is trying to stir up protests from the ‘zombies’. Same thing, over and over!

      Not hindered by any factual base, just play the media, and stir up the pot, and see what may happen!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
    • VeeDubComment by VeeDub
      April 4, 2012 @ 8:47 am

      Drewsco: You wrote: “Regardless of the partisanship, the PPAA was passed by a DEMOCRATICALLY elected Congress, whose memebers were elected by us the citizens. In essesence, their votes were representative of their constituents.”

      Would you be willing to face up to the FACT that the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Congress, whose members were elected by the citizens of several states voted to crack down on illegals, and for some reason obama’s flunky’s are using justices to try and go against those LAWS?

      Do you also find it “ironic” that he runs to the justices for help on decisions he needs, yet cries foul against justices that disagree with his socialist tenets?

      Maybe it’s not “apples and oranges” but instead “having your cake and eating it too”!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  8. BillboTexComment by BillboTex
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:56 am

    It is a mistake to think or promote that Obama doesn’t understand what he is doing. EVERYTHING he does is an INTENTIONAL step to promote his socialist agenda to destroy America. He is not a licensed attorney now, and was only a law “lecturer”, appointed by law faculty of one of the most LIBERAL law schools in America. While in college he studied under Cloward/Pevin, Derrick Bell,and most other Alinsky radicals. He has INTENTIONALLY spent over $2 MILLION to hid any birth, legal, or academic credentials – Do you really wonder why?

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (41 votes cast)
    • newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
      April 3, 2012 @ 10:09 am

      I couldn’t agree more, and it’s something that I’ve been saying for a long time. He and his cohorts knew exactly what they were doing by pushing a Black man into the forefront. If things didn’t go their way they could always use the racist card which is one of the rules of Alinsky. They are more than just half way there with their infiltration of the courts, educational system, unions, etc. I’ve come to the conclusion that even if we are able to win in November there just isn’t enough of us in these important institutions to make a difference.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (32 votes cast)
    • drewscoComment by drewsco
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

      Billbo Tex:

      Do you have any evidence to substantiate your allegations and conjectures?

      During the past 50 years, if you examine how the last 12 presidents legislated and implemented public policy, you can rightfully argu that they were socialist.

      Why are so many americans allowing their disfain for Obama skew their ability to objective analyze issues and instead adopting an extreme intepretation of what he’s doing?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (14 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 8, 2012 @ 9:00 am

      drewsco:

      Slowly but certainly the country has indeed moved closer to socialism over a long stretch of time, and yes, I will grant you that some Republican Presidents have not tried to reverse that trend, since the ‘entitlement’ programs were tough political sells to try and reverse!

      However, what we see with Obama is an unaffordable sprint towards more and more entitlements, of which ObamaCare is one, and many initiatives that pull power into the executive Branch, like for example all his Czars that are creating rules and regulations (think EPA) outside Congressional control.

      And now this attempt to marginalize the SC is just his latest EXTREME step towards his stated FUNDAMENTAL REFORM
      of the USA. Open your eyes, take the earplugs out and smell the coffee! Stop convincing yourself that he is just a nice man. He is, and has surrounded himself with other, followers of Alynsky, and other RADICALS.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  9. prairelivingComment by praireliving
    April 3, 2012 @ 9:57 am

    I would posit that Pres. Obama knows EXACTLY what the Constitution means and what “checks and balances” are meant to achieve but he doesn’t wish to be weighed down with such trivialities as he moves forward his plan to replace our current system with a socialistic one. He is incredibly good at using the press to provide him the support he needs to have issues presented in the best way for him and his goals.

    We, as citizens of this great nation, need to work diligently to see that this soon to be dictator is not elected in November. Should he be given an opportunity for four more years (or more depending on what actions he takes when reelected) we will see our constitutionally based government systematically taken apart to provide the framework to quickly institute socialism.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (33 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 3, 2012 @ 10:14 am

      That for sure.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (18 votes cast)
  10. CharlieComment by vietnamvet
    April 3, 2012 @ 10:05 am

    Yeah, well …
    There is a rumor floating around that the decision reached in Friday’s meeting has been leaked to Obama, and that is the reason for his ‘preemptive strike’ regarding the possibility for losing the mandate.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (21 votes cast)
    • drewscoComment by drewsco
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

      Paranoid………..must be a conservative

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (17 votes cast)
    • Cape ConservativeComment by Cape Conservative
      April 3, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

      drewsco – you have got to be the most closed-minded individual I have ever run across on these boards!

      If you don’t believe the justice who SET UP the healthcare bill and cheered when it was allowed out of committee by – who else but one of our infamous Mainers – leaked the results of the Friday vote, then you are definitely keeping your head in the sand. Why on earth would she not communicate what transpired in the Friday meeting to her superior? I believe she was appointed to the Court for exactly this reason and that is NOT being paranoid!

      If she had ONE ounce of honor, she would recuse herself. One of these days, We the People will have had enough and will DEMAND that Congress thoroughly investigate this man for all of his unconstitutional acts. It is truly sad that that is our only recourse…that the leadership in Congress is so spineless that they allow these repeated illegal, unconstitutional acts to stand without a struggle. I believe 535 people from the Main Streets of 100 cities/towns across America could do a better job in Congress than those currently serving!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  11. PATRIOTComment by PATRIOT
    April 3, 2012 @ 10:13 am

    Why not say it the way it really is. The President understands the Constitution, but he chooses not to honor it as he moves forward with his Marxist re-making of America.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (35 votes cast)
  12. genesalComment by genesal
    April 3, 2012 @ 10:15 am

    I Predict:
    That if SCOTUS caves in on Healthcare, that will equate to all (3) three branches of Government being broken.

    And if all three branches of government are broken our foreign enemies will come for/at us most expeditiously.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (28 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 10:21 am

      Look again, as they are here already, in the White House, the Attorney General, at least 4 of them in the Supreme Court, some that are named Czars, many that call themselves Senators and Congressmen.
      Plus all the Professors, Union Leaders, Race Baiters, and I can go on and on and on!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (35 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 8, 2012 @ 9:09 am

      Genesal:
      I think we can also expect what will happen if the SC does strike down Obamacare. Obama will demonize the SC, and argue that this “old” governmental institution no longer should be able to “block the will of the people”! He is arrogant enough to do so and thus twist the truth. Don’t forget that many Liberals will be outraged at the SC if they do strike ObamaCare down. Obama might well run arguing that the SC should be ignored in future. I hope not, but assume he would? What are we going to do against that? Haul him off to jail?

      Also, it will once again turn into a “blaming the Republicans” game, for blocking an essential overhaul of our Healthcare system. Regardless the fact that Republican ideas have largely been ignored in writing ObamaCare (tort reform for example), we will be called the “Party of No”.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  13. William MagginettiComment by William Magginetti
    April 3, 2012 @ 10:22 am
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

      I gave you 5 stars because I could find no disagreement with your post! :)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  14. effwingerComment by effwinger
    April 3, 2012 @ 10:25 am

    The Prez would be three stooges funny if he weren’t so sad and dangerous. Interestingly, the very people he claims to be representing are the ones that will be hurt the most by his reckless and damaging anti American actions. I hope I’m wrong, but I believe the country has been damaged beyond repair, and Obama wasn’t alone in the carnage…

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (23 votes cast)
  15. rosechComment by rosech
    April 3, 2012 @ 10:25 am

    As I recall, he was NOT a professor but a lecturer. You can say anything these days and get believed, but obviously his knowledge of the Constitution and Constitutional Law is NOT there, so I can believe his lectures were scarfed up by students who are brainwashed from public education. His knowledge base of anything is so minimal, it surprises me he can even play golf! Where is his budget and he is carping that GOP is not passing HIS budget review. When has he ever presented a budget. When has he really studied the Constitution? Being born outside the US means he never really studied it at any level here and was given a degree in law that he never really deserved, which is why he also never applied to a REAL law firm for a job – he never cut the mustard to do it, but then again as a puppet he does very well.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (28 votes cast)
  16. dlzjrComment by dlzjr
    April 3, 2012 @ 10:48 am

    Obama knows exactly what he’s doing in destroying the country. He wants revenge for all of the supposed transgressions the United States has done. For example, saving Europe twice from the German dictatorship, helping all of the countries of the world in their time of need or emergency, all of the foreign aid we have GIVEN the world, the use of oil to make the world a better place through the use of energy to make life easier, sending our military to save countries from take over from tyrannical forms of government. A look through history will tell the United States, in the last 225 years has done more for the world than any other country in world history. Obama wants the country to be lower than third world because HE believes that’s where we belong. And when he is held responsible for his unconstitutional rule in office, the Clintons should be held responsible also if what is being written about them knowing Obama is not a natural born citizen and not telling the country he is not eligible to run for the office of President.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (24 votes cast)
    • BobinmsComment by Bobinms
      April 3, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

      The one world theory will bring the rich countries down to average and the poor countries up to average. We’ve seen that with NAFTA. And many of the big Republican companies love it for the cheap wages. Just look at how many of them are just across the border in Mexico.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (10 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

      Bobinms,

      True about the averaging out theory.

      Look also at the EU, where they are beginning to rebel against this principle, as the formerly richer nations are now realizing how it is hurting them to bail out countries like Greece. Only the high portion of socialist representatives in those countries seems to be the reason the EU has not fallen apart yet.

      One consolation though, at the end of the averaging process, we will all be equal, so there will be no more reason for companies to go off-shore! Wonderful right? (SARCASM)

      Let’s instead give up on this stupidity and lower our corporate tax rates, to keep our companies here, and to make it possible for our own citizens to reach their american dreams!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (15 votes cast)
    • anangrygrammaComment by anangrygramma
      April 3, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

      “and when he is held responsible?” I would love to hear from just ONE member of Congress just WHY he hasn’t been already! Remember folks, it is CONGRESS who allows him to tramp upon our Constitution, by not bringing forth impeachment, it is CONGRESS who allowed the appointments of Kagan & Sotomayer & it was members of CONGRESS who no less than eight times (including McCaskill twice) tried to change the law for eligibility leading up to his election! It was the CLINTON campaign who started the “birther” issue, should you wonder why more was not made of it, can you say ” Secretary of State??
      You made hold faith in voting him & the Socialist members of Congress out, I do not. Unless they all are held accountable NOW for their inaction, and the oath that they too are sworn to uphold, the country will continue to be lost. Hell, even if they should be voted out, it will take years upon years to undo the damage these idiots have done! I suggest that we all direct these comments to our members of CONGRESS & demand answers!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (18 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      April 3, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

      “I suggest that we all direct these comments to our members of CONGRESS & demand answers!”

      gramma, I have talked to my Congress critters so many times about possible impeachment, they know me by first name, but they will not even discuss the possibility.

      Impeachment is the job of the Senate, and as long as Harry Reid and the Democrats have control of the Senate there is not a chance of impeachment. You can talk to them until you are blue in the face, but it “ain’t gonna happen”. The GOP Senators would need to persuade enough Democrats to vote with them to get a 2/3 majority unless enough Republicans could get elected in November to maintain a 2/3 majority themselves. However, with the voter fraud used by Democrats, that probably won’t happen until corruption is cleaned up, and the Democrats are not going to allow that because it is to their advantage to keep them in power.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
    • sergeantsamComment by sergeantsam
      April 3, 2012 @ 5:23 pm

      BNA42,
      Impeachment is the job of the House of Representatives, NOT the Senate. The Senate’s job is to try and convict/or acquit. Impeachment is like an indictment, only saying that there is enough evidence to go to trial. My Representative, a personal friend, has told me that the House won’t consider impeachment until there is a clear majority in the senate that will try and convict.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  17. sureshot32Comment by sureshot32
    April 3, 2012 @ 11:49 am

    Wait, how is Obama calling a hypothetical decision “judicial activism” any different than “W” calling out “activist judges”? The two words are switched, but the meaning remains. I fail to see how this would equate to the “(most) inappropriate and coercive comment… uttered in recent history by the President of the United States” when it was repeated ad nauseam by the last guy.

    I’m not a big fan of this GOP brainchild healthcare mandate, because I know that we’d be much better off with universal healthcare. Hey, we all go in to pay for universal education, universal infrastructure, universal defense, universal security, universal fire protection, etc, etc, so why not go in on the one thing that has actual life or death consequences. If you were super rich and didn’t want to go to the commoners’ doctor, you could always do what the super rich do for education now, which is go to a private party.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.5/5 (16 votes cast)
    • prairelivingComment by praireliving
      April 3, 2012 @ 11:59 am

      If you feel that you’d be better off with a health care system that limits who, what and when you can receive services then universal health care is for you. My brother’s fiance lost hearing in one ear while waiting for her name to reach the top of the list for the particular surgery she needed to fix the problem before it became permanent. Unfortunately, the British list was too long and too few of those surgeries were allowed in a given year to save her hearing. I also have a friend in Canada who was denied certain procedures because of her age. No consideration to her overall health, etc. How about those babies born prematurely in a universal health state who are left to die because they are not at the “treatable” age. Doesn’t matter that they are born breathing and fighting…the rules say let them die so they let them die. With unversal healthcare you get quotas and limits and lots of things that will make it very unappealing to a citizenship that is used to getting what they want, when the want it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (19 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

      SureShot,
      Interesting that now that your Obamacare is at risk of being declared Unconstitutional (read illegal), you give the GOP all the “glory” of having created it. Talk about how to manipulate the facts.
      The GOP voted AGAINST this monstruosity, remember?

      About judicial activism, it’s wrong for judges to let political conviction play a part in deciding on legality. They need to be PROFESSIONALS, based on a LEGAL eduction, not a POLITICAL indoctrination. Somehow, somewhere, we have gone of the rails on that principle, and we need to restore the system in that area.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • samadamsComment by samadams
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

      Judicial activism means acting outside the law. If a judge uses his personal feelings or sense of justice instead of following the Constitution, then he’s being an activist. Deciding whether a law is constitutional or not is not judicial activism. Either obama is being disingenuous in misusing the term or he’s constitutionally illiterate.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (11 votes cast)
    • KMcCComment by KMcC
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

      We currently have 4 JUDGES on the Supreme Court who do NOT rule/judge by the Constition, but by political party policy. In one case one of them has PUBLICALLY stated, after Senate approval of her, that She does not believe in the Constitution and that No other Country should use it a model because it nolonger fits her idea of a legal document to be followed.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (13 votes cast)
  18. bna42Comment by bna42
    April 3, 2012 @ 11:56 am

    “. . .an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

    Obama knows this statement is a lie because that is the job of the Supreme Court–to overturn laws that were not constitutional even though they were pased by a “democratically elected Congress”. It is not unprecedented nor is it extraordinary.

    Obama is a Chicago-style BULLY. Congress has allowed him to slap them around with no repercussions and he now thinks he can do the same thing to the Supreme Court. He has given Congress several excellent opportunities to impeach him and they have failed to do so because they are afraid.

    I still believe that Obama might gain a second term because he and his supporters are willing to steal an election. The corruption and frad in the 2008 election probably means that Obama stole the first election. I think the only way we will get rid of him is by taking control of the Senate, retaining control of the House, and impeaching him after the election since Congress will not entertain the idea of impeachment now.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 3, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

      The Democratic Senate passed a blank check (bill), with the amount not to be known and in fact told not to read the amount until it had passed. As it was illegal and unconstitutional I do not consider it a lawful ‘Bill’ as Obama might have it described.
      If SCOTUS strikes it down I will consider their action Judicial anti-Activism.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (13 votes cast)
  19. BobinmsComment by Bobinms
    April 3, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

    “We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.”

    Unfortunately this happens in congress also. The will of the people dies in committee so the party can remain in power.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (12 votes cast)
  20. creeksneakersComment by creeksneakers
    April 3, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

    I have to go back to work so I don’t have time to go into details. But, you are way off the mark when you single out Obama for believing the executive branch can act on its own against the will of Congress or the courts. The theory, called the “unitary executive theory” was developed under Ronald Reagan and expanded by George Bush. Here’s a link:

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

    Obama continues the expanded view of presidential power that Bush had, but does not practice it to the same extent.

    The term “judicial activism” means many different things to many different people. One scholar settled on five different definitions. When I studied law as an undergraduate, judicial activism meant a court’s willingness to overturn actions of the legislative or executive branches. This may well be how Obama is using the term. Unfortunately, the term is most often used to describe actions of the court that the user just doesn’t agree with.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

      First I will admit that I am not a legal scholar and am not familiar with all the individual situations where President Bush used the signing statement to clarify what special rights he claimed as President.
      It is my impression however, that the majority of those cases had to do with National Security, and speaking for myself, I am glad he did take on that huge responsibility to keep us all safe. I do believe that he had the best intentions and believed he did what he did based on his role as our Commander in Chief.

      I do have problems with so called legal scholars that come up with 5 different definitions of “judicial activism”. Sounds to me like trying to use multiple definitions so that you’re able to use the one that best fits your needs in any potential situation. Maybe they also had 5 or more definitions of the Constitution!

      This President doesn’t even seem to be bound by any definitions anymore, as he will just do as he pleases regardless anyway.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

      sneaky
      That’s a juvenile argument. If they did it I can do it too, ha ha.
      If it were done by Bush, or Bush or Clinton or Obama doesn’t make it right or even legal. That’s what’s wrong with the Government, the Separation of the Branches of Government have been breached.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
    • creeksneakersComment by creeksneakers
      April 3, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

      Agent007:

      The gentleman who wrote about five definitions for the term “judicial activism” did not create any definitions himself. He reported on how others used the term. The article was for a law review and not part of any partisan advocacy.

      I brought up the five definitions to point out what is wrong with the premise that the author of this article is using, that because Obama does not use the same definition as conservatives do means Obama has no basic understanding of constitutional law.

      I think its the author who lacks understanding of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has a history of honoring “judicial restraint” which is the opposite of “judicial activism.” Obama only said what the courts have long held – that the elected branches of government are closer to the will of the people and courts ought to hesitate to make sure they have a strong reason to overturn acts of the other branches.

      As for the “five different definitions of the Constition”, there are an almost infinite number of ways that the constitution has been interpreted. Its a little self centered to believe that ones own views of the document are the only ones that can be honestly held.

      I don’t believe that there is any chance that President Obama would go ahead and try to enforce his healthcare purchase mandate if the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. He simply can’t just do anything he pleases.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • creeksneakersComment by creeksneakers
      April 3, 2012 @ 11:35 pm

      Genesal:

      I agree with you that nobody in our government should exceed their constitutional authority. I believe this no matter which side does it, and hope you will be as willing to condemn Ronald Reagan as you are with Obama. I never said exceeding authority is OK because somebody else did it.

      I said what I have said in my original post in response to the drastic and sensational claims the author of this article makes of the simple fact that Obama used the words “judicial activism” when speaking of a potential decision by the Supreme Court. Its insane to think Obama used the term to intimidate the court.

      Anybody who has studied the Constitution would recognize that the author of this article knows nothing of what he’s talking about. He simply supplies inflammatory prose to readers who don’t like Obama and are eager to believe anything bad that’s said about him.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • genesalComment by genesal
      April 4, 2012 @ 1:03 am

      You neither described any shortcoming in Mr Salvato’s article and you certainly didn’t show any proof of such alleged shortcomings.
      Fact is I can find no fault with the article and in fact agree with his premises and the logic he uses.
      Maybe you should read his writing, The Perfect Storm, Examining the potent threats of constitutional illiteracy, Progressivism and Islamofacism facing the United States, Capitalism and Western Civilization. It can be looked up at BasicsProject.org. At the very lease you should look into what non-Profit, non-Partisan 501 (c)(3) BasicsProject.org does.
      Oh yeah your last paragraph is again juvenile.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 4, 2012 @ 7:54 am

      Creeksneakers,

      You seem to believe that since something was written by legal scholars it is devoid of any partizanship. These legal scholars being unable to come up with one single agreed (on legal/scientific) definition is worrying in itself. Also they were members of a very liberal law school, which in my mind (yes, a personal opinion) becoming a more and more questionable educational institution. If law is supposed to be neutral (devoid of political opinions) how can it be that it is written, and taught by an overwhelming majority of liberal progressives?
      And then you’re claiming that despite that Obama was one of ‘them’ he needed yet a different definition of judicial activism? My head is beginning to spin faster and faster here!
      Next you bring up the will of the people. Here is how the system is supposed to work. The will of the people has no DIRECT influence on the SC and its job of testing laws against the Constitution. If the people think the Constitution is incorrect, the people need to get Amendments to the COnstitution. That is how we guarantee some stability of LAW, instead of changing the Constitution on every sudden change in the “will of the people”.
      I will give you that people can still have SLIGHTLY different interpretations of the Constitution, as long as these are based on PROFESSIONAL and LEGAL arguments. That is why in their wisdom they created an SC consisting of no less than 9 judges! Again, to guarantee stability of our Constitution and nation.
      I hope to have better explained my position to you.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • VeeDubComment by VeeDub
      April 4, 2012 @ 9:20 am

      Creeksneakers; One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.

      That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold Obamacare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional.

      He replied: “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.”

      But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”?

      The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years!

      Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history – Marbury v. Madison in 1803 – Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution.

      They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be “unprecedented” after two centuries of countless precedents.

      In short, he is simply lying.

      Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying presidents of the United States, I prefer they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying.

      But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.

      He is also counting on something else – namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies.

      http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/obamas-lying-again/

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  21. Macdonald CoryComment by Macdonald Cory
    April 3, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

    This jerk has to go either by impeachment, election or revolution. He has to go.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
  22. Macdonald CoryComment by Macdonald Cory
    April 3, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

    I also agree that he does know what he is doing. In an NPR interview before he became President, he said that he doesn’t agree or like the Constitution; he believed that it was flawed. Obama is literally today trying to rewrite the Constitution by fiat into his own image and that of his minions.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (15 votes cast)
  23. LAPhilComment by LAPhil
    April 3, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

    I didn’t hear Obama questioning “how an unelected group of people” could overturn the laws passed by Arizona and Alabama to deal with illegal immigration while his Department of (In)justice did exactly that. What he calls “judicial activism” is just the opposite-it’s the courts doing their job by evaluating the constitutionality of a law. We’ve seen plenty of actual cases of judical activism where no one heard a peep out of the liberals. Now that a decision isn’t going their way it’s judicial activism.

    And Salvato is absolutely right when he says Obama plays fast and loose with the truth. Obama claimed that the Health Care law was approved by an overwelming majority of a democratically elected Congress. The vote may have been overwhelming in the Senate (60-39), but it was only passed in the House by 219-212. Not what I’d call an overwhelming majority.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (15 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      April 3, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

      Actually, Obama said “a strong majority”, not an overwhelming majority, but either way it’s an exaggeration. If you combine the votes in the Senate and the House, it wasn’t even a strong majority. And notice he never mentions the fact that at least 60% of the people either think the law is unconstitutional or want it repealed. When it comes to what Obama wants, to hell with the people!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • KMcCComment by KMcC
      April 3, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

      As I said above, Nancy Pelosi never allowed the House to vote to approve the Obama care. It still does not have the approval of the HOUSE!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • agent007Comment by agent007
      April 3, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

      LAPhil,

      I could not find where your response to my post was listed, but I wanted to first thank you, and let you know I totally agree with your view about the reality of the infiltration of political partizanship in our SC. Sad but true and very real.
      Unfortunately this has become a reality for our nation.

      The reason I keep bringing it up is that I grew up in the Netherlands (born in 1958 and proud US citizen since 2000).
      The NL has an equivalent of the SC, and appointments of members of this Highest Court are NOT mainly based on nominations by politicians. Although occasionally a situation might arise where political convictions of a nominee are publicly discussed, it is still deemed essential that members are first LEGAL PROFESSIONALS and need to function as such. And yes, it is accepted that members have personal convictions, but they are expected to put those aside when making their decisions on LEGAL grounds. Nominations are NOT primarily made by politicians although representatives from the equivalent of Congress are part of the nominating ‘team’.
      Believe it or not, but this system has worked well, and rarely are their any issues about whether or not this High Court has let political convictions enter into its decisions.

      Just wanted to bring that to the table. No system is perfect, but it does no harm to try and improve an imperfect system. :)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  24. Molon LabeComment by Molon Labe
    April 3, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

    It is strange, these “remake the USA in the spirit of Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and China” leftists LOVE judicial activism, when it rewrites the constitution, such as when it denies Second Amendment rights, but hate it when it endorses the constitution. What can we learn from this? Basically, they hate the America the founders created, and intend to spread the misery by creating a dictatorship ruling by fiat.

    When Congress passes a law Obama likes, then they are all-powerful and NOBODY is allowed to criticize it. When Congress won’t pass laws Obama likes, or SCOTUS says they are unconstitutional, then they they are castigated and he overrules them.

    Wake up America, before it is too late.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (15 votes cast)
  25. dixon757Comment by dixon757
    April 3, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

    My take is that Obama is simply ignorant; having escaped any consequences or real world education due to his affirmative action and game the system plays. Oh, there is one consequence: arrogance. All the slick talk only fools the rubes.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer