Skip to comments.[Liberal] Ruth Marcus: Obama should know better
Posted on 04/04/2012 7:34:02 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
And yet, Obama's assault on "an unelected group of people" stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the Constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning "a duly constituted and passed law."
The president went too far in asserting that it "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the court to overturn "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." That's what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to "an unelected group of people" precisely to insulate them from public opinion.
I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. As I listened to the arguments and read the transcripts, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalstar.com ...
These same liberals, the ones who helped Zero gain power, the “enlightened ones,” will be some of the first to go under a Zero-unleashed regime. Did they learn nothing from the Hitler regime?
I wonder where ol' Ruth would place the limit of power under the Commerce Clause.
Does she think that was placed there by our founders to allow complete government control of our lives for our own good?
God forgive me, but I hate and despise these people.
he is taking flak from some on the Left because “we told ya you should have done Single Payer, dumbass!”
9th Circuit does it all the time, overturning duly passed laws, albeit feloniously...
Needless to say the libs are slow learners.
Definite proof of liberal delusional thinking.
And yet, Obama's assault on "an unelected group of people" stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the Constitution.
This may be the first recorded evidence that delusional liberals are developing an ability to recognize the Constitution. Could be career suicide.
“a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
A strong majority of democrats? It certainly wasn’t a ‘strong majority’ of the entire congress.
I know it doesn’t matter...but I see Bammy planting the seeds of discontent: The court is over-ruling the will of the people!....even though the majority of Americans are opposed to bammycare.
Anyone who had any doubts can now be assured that either 1) out President is an ignorant man, or 2) our President is a manipulative liar. Of course, the third option is that he's both. I despise him.
When Barry begings to get under the thin skin of American Liberals, maybe folks are walking up.
LOL the commerce clause itself is unconstitutional.
Yep. She nails it. This is not about the health care mandate or Obamacare.
This is about Obama’s statements about the Supreme court. And in those few remarks is a wealth of information about him. And it is all bad.
Again, this is not about how the supreme court decides. It is about what Obama said about the court in general. It is damning. He really stepped in it this time and intelligent people know it.
Sounds more to me like somebody looking for cover before the lid comes off of this can of worms The 0 kicked over.
...and all he’s doing is lying to cover lies and depending on the media to cover for him.
Real bad time to be a ‘rat at ANY level. Much more of this stuff and The 0 is going to flush himself down the toilet, and the DNC, all the libs and the media are just going to have to hope that they don’t go as well.
I’m really, truly Sorry ‘Bout That. (Check with one of my brothers for the translation.....)
This liberal is too stupid for her own safety. If she is a supporter of the mandate and Obamacare, then she ought to be smart enough to understand that it is in no way authorized by the Constitution, just like most of what the feds do these days. As a result, the job of the Supreme Court is political, to allow socialism and require socialism when conservatives manage to pass a conservative rollback law. Its decisions are not based on words, or reason or principle, but on what the liberal agenda demands. Obama, from his perspective, is right to go after the Supreme Court for standing in the way of progress. He is a consistent tyrant. This lady is for the rule of law (doing what the Supremes say) but wants the SC to act unlawfully. And she has no idea that is what she believes.
To date: The Supreme Court has declared 149 laws enacted, and passed, by Congress, to be Unconstitutional.
Why did they specify that the power granted was for commerce “between the States” if it was, in fact, the power to regulate ALL commerce, all activity that might have an effect upon commerce, and even non-activity that might have an effect upon commerce?
One can only hope that they realize that the Constitution protects liberals as much as it protects conservatives.
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Constitutional architect James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
James Madison, 1792
I'll take their word for it!
Obama doesn’t understand federalism...he does not understand the concept of separation of powers.
What is becoming clear is that the msm is protecting him from demands he show his college grades. This man was an affirmative-action admittee, the Law Review needed a black face at its head.
The more this guy is off is teleprompter...we continue to catch glimpses of his real persona. He’s not especially bright. He does not understand how the legal system works...he knows one thing...community organizing...he’s a black Alinsky.
No birth certificate, no ss #, faked selective service record...there’s no there, there.
This guy’s a fake.
Promoting the general welfare was a PURPOSE behind those powers granted - it was not itself a power granted.
Regulation of commerce between the States is a power granted to Congress. But if it is the power to regulate ALL commerce - and any activity that might effect commerce - and even non-activity that might effect commerce - then our founders did not bequeath to posterity a government of limited and enumerated powers - but one of limitless and innumerable powers.
They'd better start defending those Supreme Court justices before some Chicago gargoyles start arranging "accidents".
My purpose in posting the quotes was to draw a parallel.
If the founders had intended that the federal government to have the power to regulate anything that might conceivably affect commerce they would have said so and they most assuredly did not!
Repeat a lie often enough, the Democrats and their newsrooms know, and some people eventually believe it.
The skinny little POS Ubama was no "constitutional law professor". He was basically a guest lecturer who was little more than an occasional substitute teacher for the real professors.
Here is an interesting recent post from freeper, AnAmericanMother:
"He was an "adjunct professor" = a non-tenure-track resume-enhancer for local lawyers to 'give back' to their alma mater. It's also a way for the law school to keep in touch with local law firms or (in Obama's case) do a favor for some influential local politician.
"I was an "adjunct professor" for years at my law school, but I was never under any illusions as to the importance of it or that it meant that I was a particularly learned person or great lawyer. I was helping out my school and getting something nice and public-spirited to put on my resume, nothing more.
"-- this sort of position I suppose is technically speaking a "professor" because it's in the title, but it is either unpaid or carries a very small honorarium. IIRC, I got the whopping sum of $200 for a whole semester's work. Didn't even pay for my outlay in gas and paper, never mind my time."
"Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;..." and nothing more!
Obama got paid for shaking down New York banks in the "redlining" suits, and made it big in the Shirley Sherrod "black farmer" political fraudsuit against the Agriculture Department. You remember, the one with more black plaintiffs than black farmers?
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.