Posted on 02/25/2011 1:36:45 PM PST by Red Badger
The SCOTUS can't make a decision until the case reaches them. To get there, it has to pass through the circuit court. And, to get to the circuit court, it has to be appealed -- which the Obama administration has yet to do.
There is no way that the Supreme Court "could (declare Obamacare unconstitutional) tomorrow", under any circumstances.
The administration obviously wants to delay a Supreme Court decision for as long as possible -- until after the 2012 elections probably. Or until a original intent justice kicks the bucket...and Obama can appoint a liberal majority.
Exactly, thank you. What’s worse is that Gingrich almost certainly knows better. I guess we can add blatant intellectual dishonesty to the list of reasons why this man should never again be allowed to become the standard-bearer for the conservative movement.
When the US Constitution is replaced with Obama Law, I see a constitutional crisis.
That's not all. Obama claims Defense of Marriage Act is unconsitutional thus he will ignore defending it.
In other words, King Obama decides what is law and what is not.
Can you imagine if Bush or Reagan had declared the "Woman's 'right' to choose" to be illegal. WOW!
Perhaps you dislike Gingrich more than you dislike what Obama is doing to this nation?
http://www.newsmax.com/video/viewid/8db50e8e-4c91-4fb5-9e39-3014ac1235a8
Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010.[1][2] This decision was appealed in October 2010.[3] On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would cease legal defense of the Act’s Section 3 at the direction of President Barack Obama, who had reached a conclusion that Section 3 was unconstitutional.[4] However, the administration is obligated to continue enforcing the law until it is either repealed by Congress or finally declared unconstitutional in court.[5]
A President can be impeached. The problem is BO/BS is not President because he has never proven he is a natural born citizen per the requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. The appropriate charge is treason. Being found guilty of that charge would negate any documents he has signed including all bills passed by Congress during his illegal occupation of the Oval Office and Executive Orders.
For now, he is as de facto president as Rahm is mayor of Chicago, even if both the law and I agree with you. His natural born citizenship, any and all fraud around it, can be made part of the charges of impeachment, because regardless of his right to be there, he occupies the office. And he can be impeached.
Gingrich is nuts. Not only can a president’s justice department decide not to defend a statute in court, they could choose to OPPOSE a statute in court, if they believed it was unconstitutional.
Aye!
Alright; I’ll follow your lead on that then, and keep working on what I’m working on as well.
Wrong, the Scotus can pick this case up today. They are choosing not to. The president can ask for expedited hearing, but the supremes can do it on their own, at any time.
But they won't do it unless they're asked.
The fact that they haven't spoken on the subject means nothing.
We're talking about upholding the constitution as it is NOW and not how one believes it should be. I don't think Bush could have legally ignored the law and jailed women who have had an abortion simply because he thought it should be illegal.
According to you, Obama could also refuse to defend this nation's borders, ban guns and even refuse to thwart an attack against the USA if he decided that to do so was in his own mind unconstitutional? So, if Clinton lied under oath as President... as long as he had the opinion that it's ok then he did nothing wrong. Right?
So, why have a constitution?
They may not do it until asked, but they certainly don’t have to wait until asked. You can keep saying that, but it won’t change the fact one bit.
The fact that they haven’t should shout to you they have no intention of declaring it unconstitutional. What the States are being required to implement, is probably undoable or at least would cost billions, so why do they not speak? I think they probably do not have the votes to undo this.
"We will continue to enforce it and allow those cases to continue and be resolved so that Congress and members of Congress can pursue the defense if they so desire," Carney said. "The President is obligated to defend the law."
A lot of people are saying they won't ENFORCE it. That's not what they are saying. People saying that are either stupid or lying.
Tell me, when was the last time that SCOTUS took the initiative and asked to take a case before it had gone thru the appeal process?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.