President Obama's stunning ignorance of constitutional law

[Conservative]

I think maybe Obama did sleep through some of his time studying Constitutional law


The Man Who Knew Too Little - WSJ.com

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday's comments: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"

Obama's answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and "as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies." He went on to talk at some length about the "human element"--that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend "a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies."

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."

But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.

The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)

Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

 

[Katzndogz]

To obama, the law says what he wants it to say. He has no problem with lying about it.

 

[Claudette]

LOL He just can't believe his "signature peice of legislation" might be found unconstitutional.

You know for a super duper Law Professor he aint' to swift.

 

[regent]

I think maybe Obama did sleep through some of his time studying Constitutional law


The Man Who Knew Too Little - WSJ.com

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday's comments: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"

Obama's answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and "as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies." He went on to talk at some length about the "human element"--that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend "a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies."

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."

But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.

The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)

Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

The Lochner case was very much part of this controversy. When the Lochner decision was announced, many lawyers, judges and others were highly critical of the decision, believing the Court had interpreted the Constitution to fit with their own opinions.
When the Court puts in their own opinions as to what they would like the law to be, it is called legislating (making laws) from the bench (by the Court). Laws are supposed to be made by the legislature, not the Court. Obama was reminding the court of this Lochner criticism.

 

[AquaAthena]

LOL He just can't believe his "signature peice of legislation" might be found unconstitutional.

You know for a super duper Law Professor he aint' to swift.

That is "one" presumption.

The other one, is that he is deliberate.

It amazes me that he is still being given the benefit of any doubt.

 

[Dragon]

He's just trying to put the best face on the situation that he can, for political reasons. He's not going to talk about the Court invalidating the law unless/until it does so. It will be more interesting to see what he says and does after that happens, if it happens.

 

[Big Fitz]

LOL He just can't believe his "signature peice of legislation" might be found unconstitutional.

You know for a super duper Law Professor he aint' to swift.

That is "one" presumption.

The other one, is that he is deliberate.

It amazes me that he is still being given the benefit of any doubt.

I can no longer believe he is that stupid. It's the big lie in action really. Do something so outrageous that people's desire to suspend disbelief kicks in and they say he CAN'T be that stupid... but he's doing it so he must be and then dismiss it.

I think it's calculated and part of his plan to change this nation into some horrible stateist nightmare with him at top. To me, nothing else makes sense and it's horrible to even consider... but really, could someone that fucking stupid have been elected if he WAS that fucking stupid? Nope. I don't buy it.

 

[Jackson]

This is just another example of this man's arrogance. He thinks the people will fall for anything he says. The Emperor is wearing no clothes.

 

[Truthmatters]

the right in this country has lost its mind and ability to judge fairly anything.

 

[Crackerjack]

the right in this country has lost its mind and ability to judge fairly anything.

Speaking of "stunning ignorance" ...

 

[Dr.House]

He's just trying to put the best face on the situation that he can, for political reasons. He's not going to talk about the Court invalidating the law unless/until it does so. It will be more interesting to see what he says and does after that happens, if it happens.

From his recent comments, it's a pretty safe bet he's going to be crying "judicial activism" and "overreaching court" if his precious is struck down...

 

[NLT]

I think maybe Obama did sleep through some of his time studying Constitutional law


The Man Who Knew Too Little - WSJ.com

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday's comments: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"

Obama's answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and "as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies." He went on to talk at some length about the "human element"--that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend "a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies."

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."

But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.

The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)

Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

He lost me after the fith Uhmm and (Pause)

 

[NLT]

the right in this country has lost its mind and ability to judge fairly anything.

This user has a diabled reputation avoid at all costs

 

[Decepticon]

All losing the SCOTUS case does is put single payer back on the plate.

No way TAXING someone for a program they disapprove of, for the public good is ruled unconstitutional.
It's done now with SS and Medicare.

So congrats CONZ...instead of a partly socialized medical system, you might just have given the left the opportunity to sell a COMPLETELY SOCIALIST system that will save them money.

I mean it's either spending HALF what we currently do (wouldn't YOU like half the money YOUR company spends on your insurance?) or stay with the shitty system we've got that doubles your bill every 8 years or so.

 

[regent]

The president is using the bully pulpit to try and save this law. He is more of the politicial-president at this moment than a Constitutionalist, yet he reminds the Court of past criticisms by Republicans of liberal judges for legislating from the bench. Will it work who knows, but as president he has to try. FDR had a similar problem and failed with the first laws, they were struck down, but a short time later the Court began to see things FDR's way, and stopped striking down New Deal laws. That's politics in America.

 

[Katzndogz]

the right in this country has lost its mind and ability to judge fairly anything.

Speaking of "stunning ignorance" ...

No doubt obama is just as stunningly ignorant.

How much does he believe his delusions? If he really believes them, doesn't he have a duty to remove these incompetent justices and impeach them? If Romney is exhibiting "madness" and treason, doesn't obama have a duty to arrest him? Doesn't the Department of Justice have an obligation to arrest Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the rest?

obama doesn't even belive his own shit.

 

[Big Fitz]

I think maybe Obama did sleep through some of his time studying Constitutional law


The Man Who Knew Too Little - WSJ.com

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday's comments: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"

Obama's answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and "as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies." He went on to talk at some length about the "human element"--that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend "a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies."

But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.

The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)

Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

He lost me after the fith Uhmm and (Pause)

Presidential loading lag... please be patient.

uhhhhhh......

 

[grunt11b]

I think maybe Obama did sleep through some of his time studying Constitutional law


The Man Who Knew Too Little - WSJ.com

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday's comments: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"

Obama's answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and "as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies." He went on to talk at some length about the "human element"--that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend "a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies."

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."

But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.

The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)

Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

I dont think he attended one day of college, but that's just my opinion. I think he is straight up manchurian.

 

[Avatar4321]

the right in this country has lost its mind and ability to judge fairly anything.

Why? Because we disagree with you?

 

[g5000]

The Lochner case was very much part of this controversy. When the Lochner decision was announced, many lawyers, judges and others were highly critical of the decision, believing the Court had interpreted the Constitution to fit with their own opinions.
When the Court puts in their own opinions as to what they would like the law to be, it is called legislating (making laws) from the bench (by the Court). Laws are supposed to be made by the legislature, not the Court. Obama was reminding the court of this Lochner criticism.

Obama said the Lochner case was the last time a Commerce Clause case involving the Supreme Court overturned a law passed by Congress. He was completely wrong. Lochner was a Due Process case which overturned a law pass by a state.