Obama proves he was an overpaid constitutional lecturer

[The Rabbi]

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.

Was there a point you are trying to make here?

 

[mudwhistle]

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......

Guess Obama realizes his BFD is now SOL.

Pretty soon he's gonna say his only mistake was being a BP.

 

[The Infidel]

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]

This is awesome..!!!

 

[regent]

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.

Was there a point you are trying to make here?

Absolutely. What gave the Court the right or power to assume powers not given to them in the Constitution? Why does the Court not have to follow the Constutitution?

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Was there a point you are trying to make here?

Absolutely. What gave the Court the right or power to assume powers not given to them in the Constitution? Why does the Court not have to follow the Constutitution?

The Supreme Court has the job in the United States system of government to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

They are there to uphold The Constitution....

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all ' The Constitution'.

Bottom line is The Supreme Court can tell the President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court can tell Congress that a law it passed violated The Constitution and is no longer a law. The Supreme Court can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

Facts are the facts...

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Was there a point you are trying to make here?

Absolutely. What gave the Court the right or power to assume powers not given to them in the Constitution? Why does the Court not have to follow the Constutitution?

They are. According to Art III Section 2, the Supreme Court has ultimate jurisdiction to interpret the US Constitution.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Was there a point you are trying to make here?

Absolutely. What gave the Court the right or power to assume powers not given to them in the Constitution? Why does the Court not have to follow the Constutitution?

They have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution, it is also their scope to interpret the laws. As one of the three branches of government they help make sure our Constitution stays intact.

 

[The Infidel]

They are. According to Art III Section 2, the Supreme Court has ultimate jurisdiction to interpret the US Constitution.

They have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution, it is also their scope to interpret the laws. As one of the three branches of government they help make sure our Constitution stays intact.

Basic Social Studies class stuff... any Junior High student should be able to understand this, but alas, the left refuses to use basic reading comprehension skills.

That or public schools are failing terribly.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Please read the actual constitution and the other 2 links before continuing the discussion. Article 3.

 

[Amelia]

If Obama says it's unprecedented then it's obviously unprecedented. Obama knows unprecedented.

 

[Liability]

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, he was pretty much on the mark.

Obama missed the lesson, bloggers say - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

 

[Amelia]

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, he was pretty much on the mark.

Obama missed the lesson, bloggers say - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Good article, all the way through to the final paragraph:

“The most galling thing of all is that if any Republican had said this, the media would be busily trying to paint them as an uneducated rube who was unaware of Marbury v. Madison - when Obama says it, it’s presented as a thoughtful defense of his brilliant law,” argued Leon Wolf at RedState.

Judicial activism is when the courts create law where none existed, not when they review a law and find it doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Sometimes Obama seems like such a lightweight. Sometimes he seems like someone who uses his knowledge of the constitution to try to skirt it. Sometimes he just seems to be making stuff up out of thin air. This case is option A & C.

 

[asaratis]

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.

It is the meaning of all those carefully chosen words that beleaguers Obama at this time. He understands them. I am not sure he understands what they mean collectively. He just can't figure out how to get around them with his typical liberal argument techniques.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're just figuring this out?

The man's a joke... he'd be changing grease in the fryers at KFC if he actually had to produce anything for a living.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama makes Dan Quayle look like Issac Newton

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wonder if he can spell potato?

 

[asaratis]

You're just figuring this out?

The man's a joke... he'd be changing grease in the fryers at KFC if he actually had to produce anything for a living.

No. I'm just now posting it. I figured it out shortly after he started giving speeches...before he got elected.

I agree that he is a joke. What is even more of a joke is that enough nitwits may vote for him again that we have four more years of his conniving Marxism to put up with. Then he becomes NOT A JOKE!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're just figuring this out?

The man's a joke... he'd be changing grease in the fryers at KFC if he actually had to produce anything for a living.

No. I'm just now posting it. I figured it out shortly after he started giving speeches...before he got elected.

I agree that he is a joke. What is even more of a joke is that enough nitwits may vote for him again that we have four more years of his conniving Marxism to put up with. Then he becomes NOT A JOKE!

I really don't see 4 more yeas happening... barring -

1. Major cataclysmic event
2. Economy really picks up steam.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

P-BO said one thing true.

"This is an open and shut case."

Damn right it is. P-BOCare is done for.

 

[Claudette]

Yup and don't think Barry doesn't know it.