Obama if congress passes bill it is constitutional

[OODA_Loop]

Obamugabe speaks.

 

[regent]

If the Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill, it is deemed to be the law of the land, and Constitutional. The Court may strike it down later but until that time it is Constitutional. I have often wondered if we are obeying laws at this time that have never been before the Court and may be unConstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill, it is deemed to be the law of the land, and Constitutional. The Court may strike it down later but until that time it is Constitutional. I have often wondered if we are obeying laws at this time that have never been before the Court and may be unConstitutional.

Yes we are.

 

[naturegirl]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

obama is supposed to have been a college constitutional instructor but appears he doesn't have a clue about the Constitution and how our Republic works. The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances within our government. Congress could write many laws just and unjust it is the part of the supreme court to insure those laws are Constitutional.

As a Constitutional Law professor he certainly knows his way around the constitution. He knows the loop holes, too.

The biggest problem he has is recognizing the fact that he is not the most powerful person in the US. The founding fathers created three branches of government to prevent ONE from becoming more powerful than the other.

He's trying to intimidate the conservative judges into salvaging what he can of his debacle called Obamacare. I somehow don't think they'll fall for it, I do not believe they can be intimidated. He is not the almighty ruler, thank goodness!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In essence, any act of Congress is presumed to be Constitutional unless the Supreme Court rules it is not:

Presumption of Constitutionality .--''It is but a decent respect to the wisdom, integrity, and patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed,'' wrote Justice Bushrod Washington, ''to presume in favor of its validity, until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'' 629 A corollary of this maxim is that if the constitutional question turns upon circumstances, courts will presume the existence of a state of facts which would justify the legislation that is challenged. 630

Consequently, measures such as the ACA should be given the utmost deference with regard to its Constitutional legitimacy.

On the other hand, With regard to laws addressing individual liberty and fundamental rights:

It seems apparent, however, that with regard to laws which trench upon First Amendment freedoms and perhaps other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights such deference is far less than it would be toward statutory regulation of economic matters. 631

Source for cited above: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25

 

[Greenbeard]

the mandate has ZIP to do with covering pre-existing conditions, and Obama knows it.

The individual mandate exists to deter adverse selection. At present, that's why we have medical underwriting (i.e. denials based on pre-existing conditions). If you want to get rid of the latter, you need something to take its place. That's what the mandate is for.

As a revenue-raiser, the mandate is a non-issue, meaning it's not possible for it to fund the public expenditures in the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny story: Turns out the Constitution has no clause at all to deal with what happens should Congress pass an Unconstitutional law and a President sign it into being. Judicial Review came later. It's generally accepted that the SCOTUS has the implied power of striking down a law as unconstitutional via the idea that as the highest court in the land, if they set a precedent of tossing out convictions or cases related to a law, that will render the law moot.

So if you're a strict Constitutionalist, and if you're really upset about the SCOTUS and activist judges, you're kinda stuck with any law passed by Congress as we still haven't amended the Constitution to address that issue. We just go by the implied idea of Judicial Review.

Before the Civil War the states had the power to simply refuse to comply with any federal law they disputed as valid. So both the Supreme Court and the states were a check on Congressional overreach. Lincoln's war of Northern agresssion put an end to that.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

The majority opposes the law and never voted on it, dipshit.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Hmmm let's look at the truth to this thought process.

"If I have more checks in my check book, I must not be out of money."

Yep... works just fine. I'm sure the bank will agree.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

that's when the court is supposed to step in and tell "the people" to piss off.

de-segregation wasn't the "will of the people" either...

the whole point of the court is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.

Ya how dare the Supreme Court actually believe they have the right and power to judge whether a law is or is not Constitutional. I mean where do they come up with this stuff?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny story: Turns out the Constitution has no clause at all to deal with what happens should Congress pass an Unconstitutional law and a President sign it into being. Judicial Review came later. It's generally accepted that the SCOTUS has the implied power of striking down a law as unconstitutional via the idea that as the highest court in the land, if they set a precedent of tossing out convictions or cases related to a law, that will render the law moot.

So if you're a strict Constitutionalist, and if you're really upset about the SCOTUS and activist judges, you're kinda stuck with any law passed by Congress as we still haven't amended the Constitution to address that issue. We just go by the implied idea of Judicial Review.

Strict constitutionalists have to ignore laws that are unconstitutional simply because you do not have any brains?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

Probably because the people who say things like that, and know what they are talking about, aren't talking about the court finding laws to be unconstitutional.

Just a thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

do you not understand what the president said?
i hope not. because if you do understand it and wrote what you said in your o/p, anyway, then you're dishonest.

He said that the Supreme Court overturning a law is unprecedented. That is a pretty amazing statement considering it has happened 165 times.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

You need to review how a bill becomes law.

Why? Would a review of the process somehow change the facts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny we don't seem to hear much in this case from that portion of the Right, a very big portion,

that constantly rants against the 'unelected' judges who wield too much power to overthrow the will of the People.

that would be because Obamacare was NOT the will of the people, jackass. The majority are still against it.

that's when the court is supposed to step in and tell "the people" to piss off.

de-segregation wasn't the "will of the people" either...

the whole point of the court is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.

Let me get this straight, the court is supposed to tell people to piss off if you agree with it, but never if you disagree because you, obviously, are always right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In essence, any act of Congress is presumed to be Constitutional unless the Supreme Court rules it is not:

Presumption of Constitutionality .--''It is but a decent respect to the wisdom, integrity, and patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed,'' wrote Justice Bushrod Washington, ''to presume in favor of its validity, until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'' 629 A corollary of this maxim is that if the constitutional question turns upon circumstances, courts will presume the existence of a state of facts which would justify the legislation that is challenged. 630

Consequently, measures such as the ACA should be given the utmost deference with regard to its Constitutional legitimacy.

On the other hand, With regard to laws addressing individual liberty and fundamental rights:

It seems apparent, however, that with regard to laws which trench upon First Amendment freedoms and perhaps other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights such deference is far less than it would be toward statutory regulation of economic matters. 631

Source for cited above: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25

Funny how that only applies to things you agree with. Tell me something, if the only way a law can be declared unconstitutional is if the Supreme Court says it, can you explain how DADT was found to be unconstitutional?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the mandate has ZIP to do with covering pre-existing conditions, and Obama knows it.

The individual mandate exists to deter adverse selection. At present, that's why we have medical underwriting (i.e. denials based on pre-existing conditions). If you want to get rid of the latter, you need something to take its place. That's what the mandate is for.

As a revenue-raiser, the mandate is a non-issue, meaning it's not possible for it to fund the public expenditures in the law.

Sounds good, in theory.

How did it work out in Massachusetts again?

 

[Clementine]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

He's well aware of what is in the constitution and he hates it. He's just hoping that most of his supporters are too stupid to get it. That way he can still blame someone for his failure. He doesn't like how the constitution was written and was vocal about that long before running for president. He'd like government to have the power, not the people. He knows the health care reform is against the constitution, but doesn't care. He has a lot of useful idiots behind him who only care about what government will give them. The goal is for them to outnumber the rest of us so he can push his socialist agenda. That is the "change" he promised- to fundamentally change our country into something it was never meant to be.

I hate how he and his ilk practically worship the U.N., which is a joke. I think Obama really does want to be king of the world.

 

[editec]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Go read a book on civics, lad,

 

[Big Fitz]

Why is there even an amendment procedure within the constitution if what the president says is true? If a majority of congress can pass a bill and it therefore immediately becomes constitutional then why is there even a section on amendments? Our president is supposed to be a constitutional professor you would think he would know that.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Go read a book on civics, lad,

I do believe that was an example of sarcasm he was using. If not, I'm with you.