Skip to comments.Mark Levin slams Roberts: If he wants to be political he should have term limits
Posted on 07/02/2012 4:51:37 PM PDT by Nachum
Mark Levin was on with Neil Cavuto earlier today talking about the decision from Chief Justice John Roberts last week and Levins point toward the end was the idea that Supreme Court Justices need term limits, especially if they are going to act political like Roberts did last week. Clearly Roberts caved to pressure of the leftist media and academic types and chose to rule in a political way instead of on behalf of the constitution and the country.
Levin also said that we should forget about the mandate being a tax and go after Obamacare on the substance of what it really is.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
Also today, Levin eviscerated Roberts on his radio show.
Someone should protect us from the Obama-Holder gangsta punks who intimidate and threaten people. Their victims fear for their lives and the safety of their families. The Chicago Way.
If Levin says it I believe it.
The Socialists now control SCOTUS 5-4
That’s bad news for future cases until we can appoint more conservatives
Why should Roberts care what the American people think of him? He is one of the elites who will never have to suffer through Husseincare.
We Must win Presidency to select the conservative and have enough votes in Sebate to get past Schumer and Leahy.
Good statement. And it reminds me of a post Civil War Abraham Lincoln quote ...
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." (Speech to 140th Indiana Volunteers, March 17, 1865)
In short, obedience to Obamacare is akin to being Obama's slave: a substance that really is inside Obamacare.
Levin hasn't said anything true about the eligibility issue. His credibility is ZERO when it pertains to the Constitution.
What the hell is the eligibility issue?
That is exactly what I'd expect to hear from anyone listening to Levin.
You drop some extraneous issue apropos nothing. Exactly what I’d expect from a moron.
Levin has no credibility when it comes to being upset with Roberts failure to enforce the Constitution, ESPECIALLY when Levin himself has conveniently IGNORED the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 as it pertains to the eligibility of a President. In fact, Levin has intentionally misled his listeners about the options available for dealing with an ineligible President. Some nerve he has in his current anger with Roberts. Roberts didn't do his job in enforcing the Constitution Thursday. Levin hasn't done his job in enforcing the Constitution for the past three and a half years. The truth is the truth, however moronic you wish to describe it. I can use the Constitution itself to prove my case. All Levin can prove is that he is and has been a coward.
Ah. It all becomes clear.
Congratulations!!!! You've established a new standard for idiotic statements.
He and Rush....
The rest are also rans
Levin is smarter than Rush
No easy feat...
Levin doesn’t have to enforce the Constitution - duh! He isn’t in Congress. Good golly - I don’t blame him for not touching the birther issue. He has made some snide remarks about it, but chooses to leave the subject alone. He doesn’t want to be portrayed as a kook. Most of us here don’t believe zero is qualified to be president under the terms “natural born citizen,” but how in the he** do we prove it?
I agree with him. If they want to be political let them have limits.
According to Levin, from the point Obama was sworn in by a Supreme Court Justice, the ONLY constitutional means for removal is impeachment, trial and removal. By saying this, he is ignoring the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, as well as the first two words of the eligibility requirements in Article two.
The Twentieth Amendment Section Three:
."3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
A few notes.
1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify", something they may have done on purpose in this instance depending upon the reasons why. National security? Who knows at this point.
3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.
4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.
Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".
Levin is WRONG about the ability to remove a USURPER. In fact, according to his position, a usurper can never exist. A dog cannot be removed as long as a Supreme court justice swears it in. He is all ablaze about whether or not a Supreme court justice has the power to rewrite legislation, but somehow silent on whether that same justice can swear in someone who is ineligible to serve. Someone who cannot legally hold the office of President can NEVER be President. They can be apprehended and arrested. My case rest entirely within the Constitution that Levin supposedly is an expert on. He is and has been a coward by ignoring it. There is your answer to "that".