Obama proves he was an overpaid constitutional lecturer

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The president is referring to the doctrine of presumption of constitutionality. As Judge Sutton outlined in Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al:

The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled
to a “presumption of constitutionality,” and will be invalidated only upon a “plain
showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” United States v.
Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000). The presumption that the minimum coverage
provision is valid 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 . . . .” United States v. Five Gambling Devices, 346 U.S.
441, 449 (1953).

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf

Obama, aware of the above precedent, is making an argument the ACA should be upheld accordingly, which is perfectly appropriate. It’s the fundamental nature of Constitutional law and American jurisprudence in general: find the best evidence in support of your argument, then make the best argument possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The president is referring to the doctrine of presumption of constitutionality. As Judge Sutton outlined in Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al:

The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled
to a “presumption of constitutionality,” and will be invalidated only upon a “plain
showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” United States v.
Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000). The presumption that the minimum coverage
provision is valid 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 . . . .” United States v. Five Gambling Devices, 346 U.S.
441, 449 (1953).

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf

Obama, aware of the above precedent, is making an argument the ACA should be upheld accordingly, which is perfectly appropriate. It’s the fundamental nature of Constitutional law and American jurisprudence in general: find the best evidence in support of your argument, then make the best argument possible.

Is he now?

First, that doctrine is not absolute. Second, he didn't have a problem when the Supreme Court struck down the Military Commissions Act and ruled, for the first time in history, that enemy POWs have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Funny how you didn't actually comment on the substance of my post, which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past, so them doing so now would not be unprecedented. Is that because it is such a stupid argument that even you cannot defend it?

Because your "substance" wasn't substantive.

Does that mean that Obama was right that striking down a law is unprecedented?

 

[Papageorgio]

What is the origin of debt that dictates that one person pays for another persons health care? Where does the authority come from that allows the government to dictate a burden on to it's citizens and forces their citizens to engage in a commerce or face a tax or fine if they fail to participate? Where would one find due process when one person, is entitled to free health care while another is taxed or fined for not having health care or choosing not to engage in forced commerce?

 

[Listening]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Many people, including Obama, study it so they can get around it.

If you actually believe the it has to be that complicated, then you know very little.

But, I know your hurting because Obummers "legacy" is about to get the Royal Flush.

Better luck next time....that or you can move to Sweden with Chris.

 

[Listening]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Funny how you didn't actually comment on the substance of my post, which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past, so them doing so now would not be unprecedented. Is that because it is such a stupid argument that even you cannot defend it?

Because your "substance" wasn't substantive.

Actually, it was.

And your reply is just another example of how the left sticks it's oversized ass between it's legs and runs when confronted with a little information.

So why don't you waddle on out of here and let the adults handle the conversation.

 

[Listening]

...which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past...

A "real man" would have read enough to know why that is SO wrong.

We have three branches of government for reason. The conservative pub SCOTUS who legislate from the bench are WRONG. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with their "decisions", its still wrong.

Sorry, but knocking out laws the violate the constitution is not legislating. It is assholes like Earl Warren who legislated, who took laws and essentially "made them better".

A real man....let us know when that happens for you.

[We have very corrupt and crooked right wingers on the SCOTUS. Their vote will be against affordable care for US citizens but NOT because they believe it to be unconstitutional. They will vote against it in order to slap down that uppity niggah.

I'm sorry but Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer are not on the SCOTUS. They are the most courrpt things you will ever see. Please prove how the SCOTUS is corrupt...or are you just butt-hurt that you won't get your free healthcare ? They asked all the questions that bloody well tell you they don't think it is constitutional and it does not take a rocket scientist to prove it (and in your case, it does not take a brain dead lefty to understand it).

[Stupid rw's heads will just be a bobbin' up and down and they'll gloat cuz they got their way when all they really got was the privilege to pay for care they don't get, can't get and will never get because the money is going to big Business.

This is nothing but a rant. The SCOTUS works from a writtend document and sometimes even reasons. How would you know what that means.

Moron.

[And, they'll vote for Grover Norquist for prez and their taxes WILL go up even though they've gone down under Obama but Norquist needs YOUR money to give to the 1%.

And, are you just so damn pleased with yourself that you took away your family's health care and your children's future because you believe the transparent lies from the pubs?

It's a great day when things work the way they should. It is just to bad that you can't get over your own selfish wants.

Here is from Federalist 45:

Apparently Obama does not recall this one:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

**********************************************

Now, please show us where the constitution gives the Federal Government the right to get involved in health care. And you can leave the General Welfare principle stuck up your teachers ass. It does not apply and we all know it....Madison was very clear on what it intended.

 

[Sarah G]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Given the choice between the President or a Supreme Court Justice understanding the Constitution better.... I'd go for the SC Justice. They have less of an agenda than the President... you do see that, right?

Or do you think we should scrap the SC and just give ultimate power to the President and congress... any President.... remember - your party will not always own the White House. You really want a GOP President and congress deciding what is Constitutional?

You do understand that the president has an opinion here and is allowed to comment about his healthcare reform bill, right? His agenda, that is correct but also the constitution is his expertise.

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

FactCheck.org : Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?

 

[mudwhistle]

President Obama attacks Supreme Court on health care - YouTube

Funny how he forgets to mention that some very liberal judges had serious problems with the mandate.

Ultimately, his only argument in defense of Obamacare is that some people will be hurt if it is struck down. Funny how that doesn't worry him when he imposes higher CAFE standards on cars.

I also like the fact that he thinks it is unprecedented to strike down a law. is he trying to say that SCOTUS has never in history struck down a law that was passed by Congress? If he truly thinks that laws that are passed by a majority in Congress are constitutional why isn't he defending DOMA? DOMA passed with a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate, and had politicians from both parties as cosponsors, and they actually had people from both parties voting for it.

Obamacare, in contrast, passed with a vote of 219-212 in the House and 60-40 in the Senate, and did not get a single vote from any Republican in either chamber. Sounds like a perfect example of a duly enacted law to me.

Didn't they strike down the line-item veto?

I don't remember any president whining about that one?

That was a hard fought law and they struck it down with barely a second thought.


It's pretty clear that this SOB doesn't like losing......and he's willing to say or do anything to get his way.....which is why he needs to go.

 

[Sarah G]

President Obama attacks Supreme Court on health care - YouTube

Funny how he forgets to mention that some very liberal judges had serious problems with the mandate.

Ultimately, his only argument in defense of Obamacare is that some people will be hurt if it is struck down. Funny how that doesn't worry him when he imposes higher CAFE standards on cars.

I also like the fact that he thinks it is unprecedented to strike down a law. is he trying to say that SCOTUS has never in history struck down a law that was passed by Congress? If he truly thinks that laws that are passed by a majority in Congress are constitutional why isn't he defending DOMA? DOMA passed with a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate, and had politicians from both parties as cosponsors, and they actually had people from both parties voting for it.

Obamacare, in contrast, passed with a vote of 219-212 in the House and 60-40 in the Senate, and did not get a single vote from any Republican in either chamber. Sounds like a perfect example of a duly enacted law to me.

Didn't they strike down the line-item veto?

I don't remember any president whining about that one?

That was a hard fought law and they struck it down with barely a second thought.


It's pretty clear that this SOB doesn't like losing......and he's willing to say or do anything to get his way.....which is why he needs to go.

He's not going anywhere for at least 4 more years. He is in good health and young so he will be around for longer than that even. He and big Bill will be helping Democrats for a long time. Time to face reality.

 

[mudwhistle]

President Obama attacks Supreme Court on health care - YouTube

Funny how he forgets to mention that some very liberal judges had serious problems with the mandate.

Ultimately, his only argument in defense of Obamacare is that some people will be hurt if it is struck down. Funny how that doesn't worry him when he imposes higher CAFE standards on cars.

I also like the fact that he thinks it is unprecedented to strike down a law. is he trying to say that SCOTUS has never in history struck down a law that was passed by Congress? If he truly thinks that laws that are passed by a majority in Congress are constitutional why isn't he defending DOMA? DOMA passed with a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate, and had politicians from both parties as cosponsors, and they actually had people from both parties voting for it.

Obamacare, in contrast, passed with a vote of 219-212 in the House and 60-40 in the Senate, and did not get a single vote from any Republican in either chamber. Sounds like a perfect example of a duly enacted law to me.

Didn't they strike down the line-item veto?

I don't remember any president whining about that one?

That was a hard fought law and they struck it down with barely a second thought.


It's pretty clear that this SOB doesn't like losing......and he's willing to say or do anything to get his way.....which is why he needs to go.

He's not going anywhere for at least 4 more years. He is in good health and young so he will be around for longer than that even. He and big Bill will be helping Democrats for a long time. Time to face reality.

Considering the long list of enemies he has I don't think that's as good a possibility as you think.

If he thinks he can intimidate the Court he is sorely mistaken.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Obama knows what he says is going to be parsed like crazy, so I wonder what the motivation for this was. Certainly he can't think he can intimidate justices into voting his way, so maybe he's setting the groundwork for the campaign.

.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"In accordance with precedent it's Constitutional." What precedent? I love that Obama thinks he can make these sweeping blanket statements and not have to explain them. As much as I hated Clinton, I love that he understood how to argue. Obama is just a complete dumb ass.

Although minutes later, he hung his hat on there needing to be a mechanism for people with pre-existing conditions to get health care. I'm so sick of that phony argument. That is not what the mandate is about.

 

[Sarah G]

Didn't they strike down the line-item veto?

I don't remember any president whining about that one?

That was a hard fought law and they struck it down with barely a second thought.


It's pretty clear that this SOB doesn't like losing......and he's willing to say or do anything to get his way.....which is why he needs to go.

He's not going anywhere for at least 4 more years. He is in good health and young so he will be around for longer than that even. He and big Bill will be helping Democrats for a long time. Time to face reality.

Considering the long list of enemies he has I don't think that's as good a possibility as you think.

If he thinks he can intimidate the Court he is sorely mistaken.

He wasn't trying to intimidate the court, he was weighing in and what he says does have weight because he is the president and healthcare reform is his issue.

 

[Sarah G]

"In accordance with precedent it's Constitutional." What precedent? I love that Obama thinks he can make these sweeping blanket statements and not have to explain them. As much as I hated Clinton, I love that he understood how to argue. Obama is just a complete dumb ass.

The irony..

 

[mudwhistle]

.

Obama knows what he says is going to be parsed like crazy, so I wonder what the motivation for this was. Certainly he can't think he can intimidate justices into voting his way, so maybe he's setting the groundwork for the campaign.

.

Obama lives in a fishbowl. Everyone around him kisses his ass.....so he's shocked when reality slaps him in the face.

I remember when Rev Wright came out......he started whining about how he knew he didn't have the same chance as other conventional (White) candidates had. He had all but given up being POTUS. He was fresh off his statement about his typical white grandmother avoiding blacks and that's when they got him out of the country and off to the Bahamas for 3 weeks till the media could smooth it all over.

He's used to others carrying his water. He fucks up and his support system fixes it for him. Well this time he's gonna have to deal with disappointment. Ever since he was in college he's had a former domestic terrorist (Bill Ayers) telling him he would be president, and that's what he's been living off since the 80s. Now his signature piece of legislation is going down in flames and he's simply lashing out at how unfair it is.

Life is unfair Mr President.

Deal with it.

 

[mudwhistle]

He's not going anywhere for at least 4 more years. He is in good health and young so he will be around for longer than that even. He and big Bill will be helping Democrats for a long time. Time to face reality.

Considering the long list of enemies he has I don't think that's as good a possibility as you think.

If he thinks he can intimidate the Court he is sorely mistaken.

He wasn't trying to intimidate the court, he was weighing in and what he says does have weight because he is the president and healthcare reform is his issue.

Sorry........he was attempting to lecture them. This is unprecedented. He actually thinks he's above the law when he does this. He's not even waiting for the decision to come down before he starts harping about it. It's very unseemly.

How can you respect somebody that does this sort of thing? It doesn't matter what he thinks because the decision has already been made. In front of the bench is where you make your case, not on TV.

He's attempting to discredit even the court. That is despicable. It's obvious he has no respect for the laws in this country.

 

[mudwhistle]

I figure when the ruling comes down and he gets done swearing and throwing temper-tantrums he'll have somebody throw a party for him or he'll give out a CMO or have another championship team will show up at the White House and award him with a jersey.

Or

Maybe they can invent an award for him. "President with the nicest smile".

 

[naturegirl]

I figure when the ruling comes down and he gets done swearing and throwing temper-tantrums he'll have somebody throw a party for him or he'll give out a CMO or have another championship team show up at the White House and award him with a jersey.

Or

Maybe they can invent an award for him. "President with the nicest smile".

I know, how about he gets the Nobel Peace Prize....................wait, it's too late. Seems someone already thought he should get that, you know with three wars and all.

 

[Claudette]

President Obama attacks Supreme Court on health care - YouTube

Funny how he forgets to mention that some very liberal judges had serious problems with the mandate.

Ultimately, his only argument in defense of Obamacare is that some people will be hurt if it is struck down. Funny how that doesn't worry him when he imposes higher CAFE standards on cars.

I also like the fact that he thinks it is unprecedented to strike down a law. is he trying to say that SCOTUs has never in history struch down a law that was passed by Congress? If he truly thinks that laws that are passed by a majority in Congress are constitutional why isn't he defending DOMA? DOMA passed with a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate, and had politicians from both parties as cosponsors, and they actually had people from both parties voting for it.

Obamacare, in contrast, passed with a vote of 219-212 in the House and 60-40 in the Senate, and did not get a single vote from any Republican in either chamber. Sounds like a perfect example of a duly enacted law to me.

Excellent point!!!





I laughed out loud when he said it would be "unprecedented" to overturn the law and said Obamacare passed with a strong majority.

Funny stuff right there.

Yeah. A majority of Dems. Period. With Americans jamming the phone lines to Congress in protest over his "Signature Legislation."

I listened to him and man what a load of bs he was throwing. "Unprecidented?" Anyone would think the SC has never overthrown anything passed by congress. Gee Barry. Guess your not as "special" as you think you are.

For a supposedly "brilliant" law professor he ain't to brite if he didn't think that clusterfuck of a bill wasn't going to end up in front of the SC.

Wonder what he'll have to say if the SC gives it the axe? Should be interesting.