Posted on 04/05/2012 6:56:00 PM PDT by chessplayer
They asked for three pages single-spaced. He gave them two and a half. Impeach.
Seriously, though, given the immense interest in this story when it broke Tuesday, there was no way O wasn’t going to use the letter as an opportunity to plead his constitutional case on ObamaCare. The court wanted a statement of the DOJ’s position on judicial review but Holder naturally gave them a little more than that. First, the obligatory — and slightly peevish — acknowledgment that, yes, Marbury v. Madison is still good law:
Holder - "In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Com1 has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S . 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-22i, 346 U.S. at 449.
In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15."
Here’s Carney from today’s press briefing, now in his third day of trying to explain how a constitutional law professor could tell the country on Monday that striking down the mandate would be “unprecedented.” He can’t admit the real reason so this will have to do.
Carney (AKA Baghdad Bob) - "President Obama knows the law."
Amen to Ben Stein
I’m surprised Holder didn’t give him a one sentence answer with the font adjusted to take up 3 pages.
I was one of the protesters in Foley Square in 2009 protesting KSM trial in NYC. I remember like it was yesteday. Curtis Sliwa, Andy McCcarty, and Steve malzberg were the speakers.
I a,m conservative libertarian lawyer in NYC.
FU Obama. FUHolder!!!!
Long live Breitbart!!!
Wrong. The Constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government. All three branches are responsible for determining whether laws are constitutional: The (often-ignored) role of Congress is not to pass unconstitutional laws. The (often-ignored) role of the Executive is to veto unconstitutional law. And the (often-ignored) role of the Judiciary is to strike down unconstitutional laws.
This is the politicians playing games in the Washington preschool.
In Marbury v Madison John Marshall wrote into the constitution the right of the Supreme Court to review the decisions of Congress. This was the seminal decision to ignore the actual words of the document.
Lawyers since have learned and accepted this in their first year of law school and have in turn passed the decision of one man looking to preserve his job into the jurisprudence of the good old USA..
NO MO BO
FO SHO!
***********
Please let me know when you produce this bumper sticker! I WANT SEVERAL!
NO MO BO
FO SHO!
***********
Please let me know when you produce this bumper sticker! I WANT SEVERAL!
The courts decide whether or not some law is constitutional not the law makers such as congress
***************************
Wrong. The Constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government. All three branches are responsible for determining whether laws are constitutional: The (often-ignored) role of Congress is not to pass unconstitutional laws. The (often-ignored) role of the Executive is to veto unconstitutional law. And the (often-ignored) role of the Judiciary is to strike down unconstitutional laws.
******************************
WELL STATED! THANK YOU!!
The SCOTUS determines if the laws passed by the legislative branch of the government are constitutional. If congress passes a law they deem constitutional (according to you) then it doesn’t have to go before the SCOTUS. Like Obamacare then. Congress passed it so according to you it’s constitutional.
Holder - “In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
More weaseling from the White Hut weasels.
They don’t think the plebs will know that there are different types of presumptions. For examples, a presumption can be conclusive or rebuttable (rebut: `to refute, especially by offering opposing evidence or arguments, as in a legal case’).
The SCOTUS made it clear that they considered the presumption of validity rebutted by agreeing to hear the matter rather than denying the writ.
If I thought the Attorney General was working for me, I might consider a malpractice lawsuit.
Just like black people, black "ministers," and liberals are supposed to presume white Hispanics who shoot black thugs are innocent until prove guilty?
Not one Republican voted for it,it was done by reconciliation,the speaker of the House said we have to Pass it to see what was in it,and to this day it is not even fully implemented and we still dont know all of what is in it, so NO ONE can say it is Constitutional as a Whole but forcing someone to engage in something under threat of imprisonment just does not strike me as American,especially in the way it was shoved down the peoples Throat.
Seems like Witholder and his King believe that the Supreme Court has no real function any more in this country.
“The last remnants of the old republic have been swept away.”
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that all three branches have a responsibility to ensure that laws are constitutional. The courts determine whether laws are constitutional, of course, but so does (or rather, so should) Congress and the President. Three co-equal branches of government is the basis for the checks and balances that make our Constitution work.
All Judges take one (or more) of three purportedly solemn Oaths (or affirmations) to support the Constitution,and laws.
Now if Congress controlled by Democrats and Progressives— and the most anti-American President Ever push through bad law that violates the fundamental principles of Liberty then the Court has an obligation to support the Constitution and NO where do I see power granted to the Federal Government to mandate anybody participate in Commerce.
Okay, understood. Thanks.
Uh, no they aren't, you AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION IGNORANT RACIST KNOW-NOTHING CORRUPT MORON.
God, what an asshat.
I almost considered this point before posting my post, above. Yes, I guess Holder is a little smarter than I gave him credit for. He's right, they are presumtively Constitutional.
HOWEVER, that's not the point.
There is nothing untrue about this statement. Doesn't mean that later it can't be deemed unconstitutional PROVIDED someone can prove harm or challenged the law. There has to be a plaintiff, clearly most Constitutional scholars think the Louisiana Purchase was done in a unconstitutional way. But nobody complained about the real estate deal of the millennium so it stood, though most think the deal was blatantly unconstitutional
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.