Obama if congress passes bill it is constitutional

[miami_thomas]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

 

[Lovebears65]

Lets face it Obama wants to be a dictator. Its his way or the highway. And the people on the left are to dumb to see it

 

[Caroljo]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Here's another from Yahoo news....I think Obama is a little worried!

Obama Warns 'unelected' Supreme Court Against Striking Down Health Law | Fox News

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Funny story: Turns out the Constitution has no clause at all to deal with what happens should Congress pass an Unconstitutional law and a President sign it into being. Judicial Review came later. It's generally accepted that the SCOTUS has the implied power of striking down a law as unconstitutional via the idea that as the highest court in the land, if they set a precedent of tossing out convictions or cases related to a law, that will render the law moot.

So if you're a strict Constitutionalist, and if you're really upset about the SCOTUS and activist judges, you're kinda stuck with any law passed by Congress as we still haven't amended the Constitution to address that issue. We just go by the implied idea of Judicial Review.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

 

[jillian]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

do you not understand what the president said?

i hope not. because if you do understand it and wrote what you said in your o/p, anyway, then you're dishonest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny story: Turns out the Constitution has no clause at all to deal with what happens should Congress pass an Unconstitutional law and a President sign it into being. Judicial Review came later. It's generally accepted that the SCOTUS has the implied power of striking down a law as unconstitutional via the idea that as the highest court in the land, if they set a precedent of tossing out convictions or cases related to a law, that will render the law moot.

So if you're a strict Constitutionalist, and if you're really upset about the SCOTUS and activist judges, you're kinda stuck with any law passed by Congress as we still haven't amended the Constitution to address that issue. We just go by the implied idea of Judicial Review.

Judicial review actually pre-dated the Constitution

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and thus one can fairly conclude that the founders were well aware of its existence.

 

[Conservative]

Overturning the law would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

He may have just pissed the SCOTUS off enough to get them to decide against him.

“I think it is important and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” he said.

the mandate has ZIP to do with covering pre-existing conditions, and Obama knows it. The mandate is how he expects to PAY for Obamacare. No mandate. 95% of the law will collapse for lack of funding.

 

[Conservative]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

 

[WillowTree]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

he's an idiot and he's butt hurt too.. just imagine someone questioning his highness' authority..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

You need to review how a bill becomes law.

 

[Unkotare]

Wow....

 

[WillowTree]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

You need to review how a bill becomes law.

well, in demoncrats world they just "deem" it so.. sow.

 

[jillian]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

that's when the court is supposed to step in and tell "the people" to piss off.

de-segregation wasn't the "will of the people" either...

the whole point of the court is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.

 

[WillowTree]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

that's when the court is supposed to step in and tell "the people" to piss off.

de-segregation wasn't the "will of the people" either...

the whole point of the court is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.

tyranny is when 50% of the people have to pay for everything. that's tyranny.

 

[Conservative]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

that's when the court is supposed to step in and tell "the people" to piss off.

de-segregation wasn't the "will of the people" either...

the whole point of the court is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.

No, that is NOT the role of the Supreme Court, and you know it.

It seems that the left cries 'judicial activism' at the same times the right does... when it suits THEIR agenda. Both sides do it, and both should just stfu about it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

obama is supposed to have been a college constitutional instructor but appears he doesn't have a clue about the Constitution and how our Republic works. The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances within our government. Congress could write many laws just and unjust it is the part of the supreme court to insure those laws are Constitutional.

 

[francoHFW]

"that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it."

Course 30% of those against it want MORE (single payer)= PUBCRAPPE. Mainstream media is a corporate coward, in effect...

 

[WillowTree]

he and the demoncraps have decided to declare a new war.. a war on the scotus..

demonize demonize demonize.. it's like a broken record already.

 

[francoHFW]

Fact, fact, fact, dittohead. Worst, most partisan RW Supremes ever- blame them for the Booosh disaster and Citizen United catastrophe, ruining health reform would be another. Don't care about law much...represent the 35% RW nutjobs/dupes/greedy a-holes.