Posted on 04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by tellw
President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.
"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.
But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."
The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.
Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.
Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.
That’s really it, isn’t it?
The difference between the left and right is the definition of freedom.
Conservatives define freedom as the liberty to do as we will without harming others.
Liberals define freedom as the liberty to do what they want without consequences, ie, going hungry for not working.
And just like Captain Kangaroo was a captain.
It might be wise to send O a copy of U. S. vs Nixon (1974?). Even the Won is not above the law. Of course, the USSC doesn’t have as large an Army as does the Pope (obscure reference). ;-)
He’s rallying the troops, is what he’s doing.
May be getting close to the time Roberts gives the Hawaii Dept of Vital Statistics a call...
50,000,000 x 1 tiny cut/day = stuffed rectum rectifier
As I was driving earlier, I was thinking this very thought and logically, my next thought was, 'this man is going to become very dangerous as his entire world collapses'. Imagine being so deeply indoctrinated in something that every fiber of your being just knows it's right. What does one do when it all collapses, and in a very public way, right before your eyes? I'm more convinced than ever he'll resort to violence if he has to.
U. S. vs Nixon (1974) Maybe the most famous words from that case: “We are a nation of laws, not men.”
Why aren’t they (Roberts) insisting Kagan recuse herself? She’s obviously in violation of federal law. And she’s a man.
And yet Obama keeps trying to pet the nice badger ... Best to let him keep talking. His outstanding personal characteristic is his overwhelming hubris/arrogance. Nixon’s mistake was not speaking up; 0’s is not knowing when to shut up.
I don't doubt you, but would you please provide the source for that.
If the law is an unprecedented power grab then it certainly is unprecedented to knock it out.
he was a law professor,
No he was an assistant to the assistant to the lecturer.
Any normal human being wouldn't be able to tolerate the total incompetence when with the snap of his fingers he could turn the Earth into heaven if he didn't have so many bumbling fools with power stifling every move he makes to create Utopia.
It must be frustrating for him to say the least.
‘“...and he was a law professor” just like Sen. Kerry was a Vietnam War Hero!’
And just like Captain Kangaroo was a captain.
Actually, one “student” has feen found (go to Breitbart.com today) This fellow, an attorney, also clerked later for the Federal Judge in the other Obamacare case this week where he ordered the Justice Dept attorney to “provide 3 single-spaced pages (no less)” attesting to if the Justice Dept currently agrees that the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Legislation.
Excellent!
Remember all those people interviewed on TV after Obama’s election who were expecting free gas, free houses and Obama money?
I say a few in the Trayvon “hoodie” marches and I think we will see more of them this summer.
Yeah. Perhaps the worm has turned.
Carney was a terribly biased dumb reporter. I am just as happy for him to be the official flack as for him to pretend he is objective. But yes he is irritating.
“and he was a law professor”
He was a lecturer. He was never tenored in fact, even in Chicago they would have laughed at that suggestion.
Now, in the old time usage of the word Professor, he would probably qualify. That usage was a professor was the guy who played the piano in a whore house.
1000’s of lies.....
There is enough corruption and treason to fill many courts for many days. Leavenworth needs to get ready. Those who survive this unraveling will spend much time there. Everyone remember who these criminals are. They need to be brought to justice (through the legal processes, of course).
Any first year law student knows that the Supreme Court can and has overturned acts of Congress as unconstitutional before. I never even went to law school, and I know that. Mr. O has to have been a non-law professor just to know such a basic fact?
It’s a problem that he lies.
It’s an even bigger problem that 85% of Americans who hear those lies don’t have a single clue about how to find out if they are true or false.
The obvious SCOTUS retort:
We haven’t seen a law THIS BAD in 85 years!!
So, let’s say the SCOTUS declares the entire Obamugabe Care Law unconstitutional and throws it out.
Obamugabe says, “Fine, we will institute it anyway, SCOTUS be damned.”
THEN what do you do?.......................
If that happened I think it would be time for the states involved to tell Obama to go pound sand and make him come enforce the “law.”
If the government is going to ignore admendments #1,9,&10. At the very least it might be time to reach for admendment #2 and stop it.
Please get on your local newspaper website comment sections and post about this farce. It’s not pretty posting on them, that’s where the progressives dwell - but that’s what the common ‘idiots’ are reading.
Fifth Circuit Court, audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/JudgeSmithDOJOrder.mp3
Fifth Circuit Court, relevant transcript in full context:
Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Justice Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –
Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.
Somebody needs to have Hussein pee into a cup.
Seriously...the guy needs to be drug tested!
The j@rk0ff grew up in Indonesia.
Our system is just noise, just crap on his shoe.
That comes after November.
So what does the judge do if there is no letter - hold the entire Dept of Justice in contempt?
Lock em up and throw away the key?
Works for me!!
I cannot argue with your statement.
Rectify? Damn near killed ‘em!
/s
interesting coincidence
” Now, in the old time usage of the word Professor, he would probably qualify. That usage was a professor was the guy who played the piano in a whore house.”
LMAO!!
“instructor” = “student teacher”
My dad was a full professor....I know the hierarchy.
He actually wasn’t a professor, but a lecturer.
That is a lie. He was NEVER a Law Professor. He taught a class. I suspect that everyone he taught flunked the bar.
the hairsplitting begins. the devil is conversant in the details.
Piss poor politics to likely alienate Kennedy (if he was leaning or undecided)
I'm wondering if you feel or any other posters feel that the Supreme Court usurped this power.
More accurately: a guest lecturer on the 14 th amendment. No more than that.
Yes, you were the one who taught me that O. was not actually a "professor."
I am beginning to suspect that leftists have different standards.... Camille Paglia described how the leftist faculty members all give "excellent" ratings to each other's "works."
Why should they spend much time there at all? On the other hand, the Federal Execution Chamber at Terre Haute, IN might be more than a little busy, at the end of all this...
the infowarrior
FWIW:
How many laws has the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional?
Good to have on hand when they start screaming.
Marbury v Madison, 1803...
the infowarrior
I agree. Good points and perspective.
This evil bastard will get away with as much as he’s allowed.....and so far he’s gotten away with a devestating amount.
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.