To Save ObamaCare, Obama Does Full Court Press

Checks And Balances: A president with no respect for the Constitution warns of judicial activism by a Supreme Court reviewing his landmark legislation's constitutionality. It would be unconstitutional to let it stand.

Someone will have to remind President Obama the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, part of a system of checks and balances designed to rein in precisely the kind of runaway government exhibited by his administration. Our community-organizer-in-chief has a different opinion.

"Ultimately, I am 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 a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Is this the same Congress Obama has pledged to go around through executive orders and regulations?

This is precisely what the Supreme Court is designed to do — determine the constitutionality of laws passed by democratically elected legislatures and Congress.

Surely the constitutional law professor has heard of Marbury v. Madison, the 1802 case that formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional."

Such an action is not unprecedented. The court has invalidated at least two laws for violating the Commerce Clause in the last 20 years, and ObamaCare, with its unprecedented invocation of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty, would qualify. By one estimate, the Supreme Court has struck down 53 laws between 1981 and 2005 alone

Flanked by the leaders of two foreign countries, the American President throws out a flimsy "straw man" argument and flagrant misrepresentation of conservative thought, as well as an outright false history of Supreme Court rulings on laws already enacted, and some elected officials are hedging on calling him out for it?

Come on conservatives, if this is to be his "straw man" argument, then true conservatives need to expose, as the writers on some threads have, the fallacies of his premise.

For him to take conservative opposition to what they describe as "judicial activism" and attempt to turn it against the Court's appropriate role of interpreting the Constitution's limits on government power is the maneuver one might expect from him. Meanwhile, his own appointee knows exactly what conservatives have meant when they speak of "judicial activisim."

When conservatives complain about "judicial activism," they are describing the same kind of "activism" as his appointee to the Court, Sotomayor, described in her meeting at Duke University when she stated that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," and then added, "I know I shouldn't have said that, but . . . ."-- with a smile.

His open attempt at intimidating what he referred to as the "unelected" branch of government is a reminder of the wisdom of America's Founders in their making it just that: an "unelected" and, hopefully, an independent and objective group of individuals who would look to the approbation of future generations, and their gratitude for the Court's preservation of their liberty and freedom, rather than the railings or approval of a temporary and Partisan political tyrant of the moment.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us of such "artful" persons who, once elected to positions of temporary power, might attempt to subvert the Constitution's limits on their power.

Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, concluded with these words:

"The national constitution is our last, and our only security. United we stand; divided we fall.
§ 1907. If these Commentaries shall but inspire in the rising generation a more ardent love of their country, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the Union, then they will have accomplished all, that their author ought to desire. Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of fife, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

And, as far as Judge Napolitano's bringing up the name of Andrew Jackson, the following words from Jackson indicate a far different message about the Constitution than those heard so far from this President:

From Page xv of "Our Ageless Constitution,", here excerpted words from President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation of December 10, 1832:

"We have received it [the Constitution] as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution . . .? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault. . . . No, we did not err! . . . The sages . . . have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent* Constitutional compact. . . . The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace: it shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity. . . ."

*Underlining added for emphasis

And, it was Thomas Jefferson who used another metaphor with reference to the Constitution when he indicated that "the People" must "bind them (government) by the chains of the Constitution." In another instance, he declared: "It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers. . . ."

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.