Obama proves he was an overpaid constitutional lecturer

[The Rabbi]

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.

Obama is not the Solicitor General. The SG makes arguments in front of the SC. And I dont recall the SG making any such argument. Congress' acts are only presumed constitutional. BUt that presumption may be overturned on a showing of the facts. Which is what has happened.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

must be.

It is an easy read and easier to understand. I'm not sure why you would have to go to school to understand 4400 words, sounds arrogant to claim otherwise.

Yes.. the arrogance of some who do not think someone can study, read, or understand the Constitution without some self appointed know-it-all professor shoving it down their throat with an agenda behind it...

God forbid someone learn on their own... I mean it took Einstein all those numerous college classes, decades in a classroom, and being reliant on professors to understand mathematics and the nature of physics... out of school he could not have possibly studied on his own while working in another job to pontificate things...

 

[Conservative]

I don't understand why people are whining about Obama calling the possible overturning of the ACA 'unprecedented'. Don't you know that telling Obama 'no' on anything, is unprecedented to him?

 

[Decepticon]

When was the last time the SCOTUS struck down 70 years of precedence?

In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.

None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Wickard's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.

The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.

Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to fed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.

The court in effect ruled that growing crops on one's own property, to feed one's own livestock, while neither "interstate," nor "commerce," is "Interstate Commerce."

Wickard v. Filburn - Conservapedia


Now tell me why forcing everyone to get insurance is any more egregious than telling a farmer what he can and can't grow on his own land for his own use and if they're going to use this to overturn Wickard v Filburn and on what basis?

You DO know that PRECEDENTS take precedence, right? That it takes a LOT to overturn 70 years of established law, right? Now what makes you think that this precedent will be overturned?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

must be.

You never have anything substantive to add. You tell us Clarence Thomas is a lousy judge, I challenge you to post the decision that most clearly shows this, and we get crickets.

Obama the "Constitutional expert" gets bitchslapped by SCOTUS on the individual mandate and you go ad hominem on us.

Is your understanding that the Federal government can compel an individual to enter into a contract under the "Good and welfare" clause or is your answer a Pelosi like "Are you serious?"

 

[Full-Auto]

...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.

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.

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.

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?

Your stupidity in spades is showing.

 

[driveby]

When was the last time the SCOTUS struck down 70 years of precedence?

In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.

None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Wickard's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.

The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.

Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to fed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.

The court in effect ruled that growing crops on one's own property, to feed one's own livestock, while neither "interstate," nor "commerce," is "Interstate Commerce."

Wickard v. Filburn - Conservapedia


Now tell me why forcing everyone to get insurance is any more egregious than telling a farmer what he can and can't grow on his own land for his own use and if they're going to use this to overturn Wickard v Filburn and on what basis?

You DO know that PRECEDENTS take precedence, right? That it takes a LOT to overturn 70 years of established law, right? Now what makes you think that this precedent will be overturned?

Learn the difference between producer and consumer, then start over....

 

[driveby]

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.

For the second time......

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Did he even hear himself?

They are complaining that the supreme court justices are talking about throwing hte whole law out instead of just the mandate. If they only strip the mandate then they are effectively legislating from the bench. It is not their job to edit/re-write legislation only to decide if it is constitutional or not.

Obama made him self look unaware of how our system works. Also with Obamacare he made himself look unaware of what powers the constitution allows the federal government to have.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

must be.

SO where does the constitution give the federal government the authority to mandate a private citizen buys a product from a private company based of the sole fact that they are a citizen?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did the Supreme Court go beyond the Constitution when they decided, with no Constitutional authority, to interpret and decide if laws violate the Constitution and then assume they had the power to render them void? Was this a form of judicial activism?

That is their constitutionally designated job, to interpret legislation (laws) for their constitutionality.

If they only took one part of the law out, effectively editing the law, then they would be judicial activists. If they strike down the whole law based of part being unconstitutional then they are doing their constitutionally outlined job. By editing a bill/removing one part they would be re-writing legislation, also known as legislating from the bench. By throwing the whole law out they are sending it back to the legislature to re-write the law in a manner that does not violate the constitution.

Did I answer your questions for you?

 

[The Rabbi]

When was the last time the SCOTUS struck down 70 years of precedence?

In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.

None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Wickard's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.

The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.

Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to fed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.

The court in effect ruled that growing crops on one's own property, to feed one's own livestock, while neither "interstate," nor "commerce," is "Interstate Commerce."

Wickard v. Filburn - Conservapedia


Now tell me why forcing everyone to get insurance is any more egregious than telling a farmer what he can and can't grow on his own land for his own use and if they're going to use this to overturn Wickard v Filburn and on what basis?

You DO know that PRECEDENTS take precedence, right? That it takes a LOT to overturn 70 years of established law, right? Now what makes you think that this precedent will be overturned?

BEcause Wickard's actions affected interstate commerce. Not buying insurance does not affect interstate commerce. The administration argues that not acting ought to be regulated just like acting is. That is a fail of an argument because there is no limiting principle to it. That is the crux of the matter. And when asked what the limiting principle was the SG couldn't give a coherent answer.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

must be.

You never have anything substantive to add. You tell us Clarence Thomas is a lousy judge, I challenge you to post the decision that most clearly shows this, and we get crickets.

Obama the "Constitutional expert" gets bitchslapped by SCOTUS on the individual mandate and you go ad hominem on us.

Is your understanding that the Federal government can compel an individual to enter into a contract under the "Good and welfare: clause or is your answer a Pelosi like "Are you serious?"

It's because she is not the lawyer she pretends to be. If she engages in too much discussion that will become apparent to everyone.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When was the last time the SCOTUS struck down 70 years of precedence?

In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.

None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Wickard's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.

The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.

Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to fed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.

The court in effect ruled that growing crops on one's own property, to feed one's own livestock, while neither "interstate," nor "commerce," is "Interstate Commerce."

Wickard v. Filburn - Conservapedia


Now tell me why forcing everyone to get insurance is any more egregious than telling a farmer what he can and can't grow on his own land for his own use and if they're going to use this to overturn Wickard v Filburn and on what basis?

You DO know that PRECEDENTS take precedence, right? That it takes a LOT to overturn 70 years of established law, right? Now what makes you think that this precedent will be overturned?

BEcause Wickard's actions affected interstate commerce. Not buying insurance does not affect interstate commerce. The administration argues that not acting ought to be regulated just like acting is. That is a fail of an argument because there is no limiting principle to it. That is the crux of the matter. And when asked what the limiting principle was the SG couldn't give a coherent answer.

Once again decepticon what do you think that is a precedence for?

You tried to use this same exact cut and paste post in 2 other threads now to justify forcing americans to purchase a product from a private company by virtue of being a citizen through the interstate commerce clause but, as you already know from the previous conversations, this wheat case is not precedent for that.

 

[The Rabbi]

And if it is and the SC strikes it down that will be even better.
The Court strikes down precedent all the time. Look at Bowers v Hardwick.

 

[regent]

Did the Supreme Court go beyond the Constitution when they decided, with no Constitutional authority, to interpret and decide if laws violate the Constitution and then assume they had the power to render them void? Was this a form of judicial activism?

That is their constitutionally designated job, to interpret legislation (laws) for their constitutionality.

If they only took one part of the law out, effectively editing the law, then they would be judicial activists. If they strike down the whole law based of part being unconstitutional then they are doing their constitutionally outlined job. By editing a bill/removing one part they would be re-writing legislation, also known as legislating from the bench. By throwing the whole law out they are sending it back to the legislature to re-write the law in a manner that does not violate the constitution.

Did I answer your questions for you?

No, the question is where in the Constitution does it designate the Supreme Court should interpret and decide if a law violates the Constitution? Did the Constitution assume power not given to it in the Constitution. Again where is this in the Constitution?

 

[The Rabbi]

Did the Supreme Court go beyond the Constitution when they decided, with no Constitutional authority, to interpret and decide if laws violate the Constitution and then assume they had the power to render them void? Was this a form of judicial activism?

That is their constitutionally designated job, to interpret legislation (laws) for their constitutionality.

If they only took one part of the law out, effectively editing the law, then they would be judicial activists. If they strike down the whole law based of part being unconstitutional then they are doing their constitutionally outlined job. By editing a bill/removing one part they would be re-writing legislation, also known as legislating from the bench. By throwing the whole law out they are sending it back to the legislature to re-write the law in a manner that does not violate the constitution.

Did I answer your questions for you?

No, the question is where in the Constitution does it designate the Supreme Court should interpret and decide if a law violates the Constitution? Did the Constitution assume power not given to it in the Constitution. Again where is this in the Constitution?

Go review Marbury v Madison.
Where is a right to privacy in the Constitution? Where is a right to abortion?
Judicial review is a 200+year old principle.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did the Supreme Court go beyond the Constitution when they decided, with no Constitutional authority, to interpret and decide if laws violate the Constitution and then assume they had the power to render them void? Was this a form of judicial activism?

That is their constitutionally designated job, to interpret legislation (laws) for their constitutionality.

If they only took one part of the law out, effectively editing the law, then they would be judicial activists. If they strike down the whole law based of part being unconstitutional then they are doing their constitutionally outlined job. By editing a bill/removing one part they would be re-writing legislation, also known as legislating from the bench. By throwing the whole law out they are sending it back to the legislature to re-write the law in a manner that does not violate the constitution.

Did I answer your questions for you?

No, the question is where in the Constitution does it designate the Supreme Court should interpret and decide if a law violates the Constitution? Did the Constitution assume power not given to it in the Constitution. Again where is this in the Constitution?

Read Article 1, 2, and 3 (3 is the judicial) of the constitution. Then read up on the seperation of powers. It is all right there for you. You may also want to read about our system of checks and balances

It is the judicial branch's job to try federal cases and interepret the laws and executive orders for constitutionality.

 

[regent]

That is their constitutionally designated job, to interpret legislation (laws) for their constitutionality.

If they only took one part of the law out, effectively editing the law, then they would be judicial activists. If they strike down the whole law based of part being unconstitutional then they are doing their constitutionally outlined job. By editing a bill/removing one part they would be re-writing legislation, also known as legislating from the bench. By throwing the whole law out they are sending it back to the legislature to re-write the law in a manner that does not violate the constitution.

Did I answer your questions for you?

No, the question is where in the Constitution does it designate the Supreme Court should interpret and decide if a law violates the Constitution? Did the Constitution assume power not given to it in the Constitution. Again where is this in the Constitution?

Read Article 1, 2, and 3 (3 is the judicial) of the constitution. Then read up on the seperation of powers. It is all right there for you. You may also want to read about our system of checks and balances

It is the judicial branch's job to try federal cases and interepret the laws and executive orders for constitutionality.

Nope, the Constitution never gave the Court the power to interpret and declare laws of Congress, laws of the states, acts of the president unconstitutional, the Court simply assumed those power in a famous case, Marbury v. Madison, and then followed it up with more cases supporting the thesis. Each of those cases that supported Marbury are found in most, if not all, school textbooks. And if you went that far check out nullification.
But the power to declare an act of Congress, a state or presidential act unconstitutional is not in the Constitution. This is one of the things taught in govenment classes and probably never made much sense or even remembered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

must be.

SO where does the constitution give the federal government the authority to mandate a private citizen buys a product from a private company based of the sole fact that they are a citizen?

Pelosi: "Are you serious?"

Conyers: (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): "the good and welfare clause"

Jillian: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]Cricket Sound - YouTube[/ame]