Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Holder sends letter to Fifth Circuit: Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional...
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/05/holder-sends-letter-to-fifth-circuit-courts-are-supposed-to-presume-that-laws-are-constitutional-you-know/ ^

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."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
In other words, the Supreme Court should not even have heard this case, or any other case, much less render judgement on it.
1 posted on 04/05/2012 6:56:06 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Mmmm, no. The courts decide whether or not some law is constitutional not the law makers such as congress. Mr. Holder needs a course on Constitutional law as well as Obamalamadingdong.


2 posted on 04/05/2012 7:00:41 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
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.

 Sowell

3 posted on 04/05/2012 7:02:09 PM PDT by QT3.14 (How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think -- Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

hey, it worked with his birth certificate! I guess he just figured they would just take his word for it with this too!


4 posted on 04/05/2012 7:02:38 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
"Carney (AKA Baghdad Bob) - "President Obama knows the law."

Hell. He doesn't even know (for sure) who his daddy is.

I'm sorry - lost my mind just for a moment. Should be: "He don't know fo sho who his daddy be."
5 posted on 04/05/2012 7:02:41 PM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Mr. Holder arms terrorists and has burned
American children alive.

Of what need has he, or his racist-terrorist DOJ,
ever had for SCOTUS, truth, justice, or the American way.


6 posted on 04/05/2012 7:03:05 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

And intelligent citizens are to presume that the Affirmative Action, US Attorney General, is an unabashed, in-your face, Commie Racist.


7 posted on 04/05/2012 7:05:09 PM PDT by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Remember these radical leftist utopian hacks live in a false world where right and wrong are defined by their radical agenda, not what is right for America and its laws.

Courts could presume laws to be Constitutional, if we had honest, law and Constitution abiding people creating them. But we don’t— we have Obama and Holder, et al.

So that removes that assumption.


8 posted on 04/05/2012 7:06:56 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
i guess that means laws against illegal immigration and defense of marriage laws are okydoky then too...
9 posted on 04/05/2012 7:07:54 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

FOAD Holder lying sack o sheit.... you will be flushed down the toilet on November 6th 2012 along with your patron Hussein Obama


10 posted on 04/05/2012 7:08:33 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

It is my understanding that our judicial systems must assume that all laws are constitutional until challenged by someone with standing. Otherwise every law passed would have to pass through the judicial system before becoming accepted law.


11 posted on 04/05/2012 7:08:59 PM PDT by doc1019 (Romney will never get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

In Texas tonight there is an Assistant U.S. Attorney thinking “Why me?!”


12 posted on 04/05/2012 7:10:40 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; All
Forgot to add this little gem:

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured.......

…. But not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

 Ben Stein

13 posted on 04/05/2012 7:10:41 PM PDT by QT3.14 (How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think -- Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy
And intelligent citizens are to presume that the Affirmative Action, US Attorney General, is an unabashed, in-your face, Commie Racist.

I noticed today that Rush was calling him Eric the Red.

14 posted on 04/05/2012 7:12:27 PM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

He and his boss are basically daring We th e People to do something about it.


15 posted on 04/05/2012 7:13:16 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

It’s all out war now against the SC by obama and the media.


16 posted on 04/05/2012 7:13:45 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom

I heard that TOO!!! Loved it!


17 posted on 04/05/2012 7:14:17 PM PDT by goodnesswins (2012..."We mutually pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Uh, “presumptively constitutional” is sort of beside the point when the law in question is under active consideration by the Supreme Court. We’re past presumption at that point.


18 posted on 04/05/2012 7:14:40 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

...............................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.” .............................

???????A Constitutional Law Professor???? WTF

How about a sometimes substitute law lecturer who lost his license to practice law in his home state!!!


19 posted on 04/05/2012 7:14:43 PM PDT by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
It is my understanding that our judicial systems must assume that all laws are constitutional until challenged by someone with standing

No. The courts are silent on the question of a law's constitutionality until an appellate court has agreed to adjudicate a case brought by a party with standing to bring suit.

20 posted on 04/05/2012 7:19:22 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
ya got that right...
21 posted on 04/05/2012 7:19:25 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I would presume a 2,700-page law is not only unconstitutional but also tyranical.


22 posted on 04/05/2012 7:21:05 PM PDT by matt1234 (Bring back the HUAC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Thought that’s what I said?


23 posted on 04/05/2012 7:21:37 PM PDT by doc1019 (Romney will never get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Noob1999

Bullsh*t - to the premise of this diatribe by Eric Holder and “our” President. THE United States Constitution has precedence over ANY law - not an amendment, and it IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of our U.S. Supreme Court to exert their part of the “checks and balances” set forth by our Founding Fathers to ensure OUR FREEDOM!


24 posted on 04/05/2012 7:26:39 PM PDT by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom
I noticed today that Rush was calling him Eric the Red.

Not that far from the truth because Holder and his wife have quite a bit of white blood (more than 50%) and their families were the "lighter" elite of Barbados before they immigrated here circa 1920. 

Yep. Holder and his wife have 0% American slave ancestry same as phony baloney Afro-American Barrack. Both got here decades after the Civil War. My people got here circa 1905 so I have nothing to do with slavery either. Of course ignoramus blacks keep persisting on their one track racial mind that I'm still owed due to my great great great grandfathers grandmothers slavery

25 posted on 04/05/2012 7:28:15 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I’d give holder contempt of court and lock him up until he wrote a correct letter and an apology. Murderer cell block.


26 posted on 04/05/2012 7:28:50 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

!


27 posted on 04/05/2012 7:31:05 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Kill all the terrorists; protect all the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Court ought to ask why they have to presume Obama are constitutional but the executive branch can presume doma and don’t ask don’t tell, and our immigration laws, are not.


28 posted on 04/05/2012 7:31:14 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
yup...
29 posted on 04/05/2012 7:33:07 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

This isn’t even ignorance on behalf of 0bama and Holder.. They both KNOW that the SCOTUS exists to judge the Constitutionality of Laws. They KNOW that. What they also know is that the SCOTUS stands IN THE WAY of 0bama’s plans for a Dictatorial regime. ADMITTING this is something 0bama and Holder would never do, so they continue with the ‘back and forth’ legal word play as a diversion.


30 posted on 04/05/2012 7:33:21 PM PDT by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Bullshit, Mr. Attorney General!

The scope of the Supreme Court's purview on judicial review was first set forth over two hundred years ago in Marbury v. Madison, and that purview has expanded inexorably and incrementally ever since. It is precisely the broad review power of the Supreme Court that has effectuated many of the goals of the Civil Rights movement, the effectuation of which have resulted in your appointment to the high office you now hold.

Think about your oath of office, sir, and that of the man to whom you are charged with providing legal counsel. As it stands at this point, you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. You will have to answer not only to the people of the United States, but to that Great Lawgiver whose writ binds us all.



Nos genuflectitur ad non princeps sed Princeps Pacem!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

31 posted on 04/05/2012 7:33:40 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lyby

dumbo - “If congress won’t act, I will”


Taking the powers of Congress onto himself. Telling the SC that they have no right to say if something is constitutional or not. DICTATOR!!!


32 posted on 04/05/2012 7:35:51 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The vote on this bill in the House was treasonous to say the least. The late J Murtha, took a visible show of hands, and an auditory. He claimed it was the speakers prerogative on how to hold the vote.


33 posted on 04/05/2012 7:36:48 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
I want a bumper sticker that says:

NO MO BO
FO SHO!

34 posted on 04/05/2012 7:38:33 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
Who in their right mind would trust the dirty democrats to abide by the constitution? Nancy Pig Pelosi and Dirty Harry Reed are corrupt lowlifes who shouldn't be trusted to clean an outhouse.
35 posted on 04/05/2012 7:39:22 PM PDT by peeps36 (America is being destroyed by filthy traitors in the political establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

Hear! Hear! Sir, ConorMacNessa!! And I express my gratitude for yours and your father’s service to our country! - I appreciate the information you shared on your “about” page!!!


36 posted on 04/05/2012 7:41:27 PM PDT by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

ROFLOL!!!


37 posted on 04/05/2012 7:44:16 PM PDT by iceskater (I am a Carnivore Conservative - No peas for me. (h/t N.Theknow))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Obumbo is a “dictator-wanna-be”. (I pray.)


38 posted on 04/05/2012 7:48:19 PM PDT by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I have a law degree and Obama / Holder make a total disgrace of the legal profession.


39 posted on 04/05/2012 7:48:19 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
Heck, I don't have a law degree but thought the same thing when Holder announced he was going to try Guantanamo terrorists in civil courts. Of course, I thought it even more disgraceful when I found out the firm he partnered at before his current position represented Guantanamo terrorists. How easy for his buddies back at the firm to get their terrorist clients off - after the fact - by citing they were denied due process? “Hey, Thanks Eric! We got all these billable hours and didn't even have to put any thought into it!”
40 posted on 04/05/2012 7:58:13 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

Amen to Ben Stein


41 posted on 04/05/2012 8:03:04 PM PDT by BornToBeAmerican (Kindness will conquer evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I’m surprised Holder didn’t give him a one sentence answer with the font adjusted to take up 3 pages.


42 posted on 04/05/2012 8:04:38 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

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!!!


43 posted on 04/05/2012 8:05:56 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
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.

44 posted on 04/05/2012 8:16:04 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Blah blah blah

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..

45 posted on 04/05/2012 8:32:56 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

46 posted on 04/05/2012 8:36:28 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

NO MO BO
FO SHO!
***********
Please let me know when you produce this bumper sticker! I WANT SEVERAL!


47 posted on 04/05/2012 8:46:32 PM PDT by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

NO MO BO
FO SHO!
***********
Please let me know when you produce this bumper sticker! I WANT SEVERAL!


48 posted on 04/05/2012 8:46:32 PM PDT by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

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!!


49 posted on 04/05/2012 8:51:33 PM PDT by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

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.


50 posted on 04/05/2012 9:03:54 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson