Obama proves he was an overpaid constitutional lecturer

[Erand7899]

.

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.

.

You are correct, Obama is setting the stage to claim that the Supreme Court striking down his health care law was judicial activism by the conservative members of the court. He will assert that the Court is doing the bidding of the corporations and the wealthy, and his dumbed down base will believe it.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Wickard's actions did not affect interstate commerce. It did not affect intrastate commerce, and the Supreme Court's decision in that case was so off base from the US Constitution as to be treasonous. Under that dumbass decision, the federal government could declare that making home made icecream affects interstate commerce, and can be regulated or forbidden by the government. If nothing more, the Supreme Court could do us all a favor, and overturn that precedent.

 

[regent]

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...

And where in the Constitution does the Court get that power?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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...

And where in the Constitution does the Court get that power?

here you go

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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...

And where in the Constitution does the Court get that power?

Go read MArbury, where they derive the power.

 

[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.

Wickard's actions did not affect interstate commerce. It did not affect intrastate commerce, and the Supreme Court's decision in that case was so off base from the US Constitution as to be treasonous. Under that dumbass decision, the federal government could declare that making home made icecream affects interstate commerce, and can be regulated or forbidden by the government. If nothing more, the Supreme Court could do us all a favor, and overturn that precedent.

That was the court's finding. You don't like it, fine. But that was their finding and we have to live with it unless or until someone strikes it down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

No one is saying he is not entitled to his opinion, they just object to him inventing his own facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

If we are to believe Obama, who you will argue is an expert, it was two years ago.

Why do you ask?

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.

I thought you said he was growing wheat in his backyard and feeding chickens. Did me lecturing you on your stupidity help you realize you don't know what you are talking about?

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.

It did, however, affect the market.

The intent of the law was to artificially prop up prices of wheat. By not buying the wheat to feed his cattle he depressed the price of wheat on the market. Additionally, he actually sold the cattle on the interstate market, so he was, obviously, participating in it. That made his actions commerce, despite the fact that he was not actually selling, or buying, wheat.

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

I see the problem here, you are using an Onion type site to argue your position against someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

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?

It isn't. It is, however, different to tell someone they can't do something, which is what Wickard established, and that they have to do something.

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?

Yet, according to Obama, they overturned over a century of precedence in Citizen's United. I am no constitutional scholar like our president, but I would think overturning 70 years is a lot easier.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Incredible how stupid some people are.

The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionally of a law in Hylton v US (1796) and Calder v Bull (1798), less than 20 years after the constitution was ratified. You would think that, if they didn't actually have that power, somebody would have said something then. Marbury v Madison (1803) is only a key case because it found a law that expanded the court's original jurisdiction, which is actually defined in the constitution, to be unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Citing Marbury as proof that the court does not follow the constitution takes a level of stupidity that can only be explained by brain damage.

 

[regent]

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...

And where in the Constitution does the Court get that power?

here you go

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.

When citing the Constitution Article, Section, Clause. Again, where in the Constitution is the power found for the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress, unconstitutional?

 

[syrenn]

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.

Have you been to law school? Harvard? Have you been the editor of law review? If not, shut up! Your opinion isn't worth shatz. Ask Jillian!

No, but i know a lot who have been to Harvard law, Colombia law and Stanford law. Does the opinion of the editor of the Stanford law Review count?...ill ask him...over dinner

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

The way you think is why they invented bitch-slapping.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Have you been to law school? Harvard? Have you been the editor of law review? If not, shut up! Your opinion isn't worth shatz. Ask Jillian!

No, but i know a lot who have been to Harvard law, Colombia law and Stanford law. Does the opinion of the editor of the Stanford law Review count?...ill ask him...over dinner

Ohhhhhhhhhhh......aren't we special.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"Overpaid" implies that Obama does stuff worth paying for. If America were a business, he would have been fired long ago.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine if Bush said anything as stupid as "If Congress passes a law it must be Constitutional"?