Obama, The Anti-Constitutional President

By
April 2, 2012

Shorter Obama, "We don't need no stinking third branch of government. I'm in control here!" I've never seen the value of going the whole birther route to try and undermine Obama's presidency. But if you want to know if he believes in the Constitution, or not, I think that issue has been resolved. Not!

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. drawandstrike says:

    Like a guy I read on Twitter just said, when ObamaCare is overturned, at last Obama will be mentioned in Constitutional scholarship!

  2. Ragspierre says:

    Oh, THAT might be just the beginning…!!!
    BTW, didn’t his thugette HHS Secretary just over-turn the 1st Amendment?
    Why, yes…yes, she DID..!!!

  3. Ragspierre says:

    Oh, SSSSSSAAAAAANPPPPpppp….
    From the 5th Circuit (one of the best)…
    The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
    The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
    Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.
    Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”
    They ordered the DOJ to submit a three-page letter stating its position on judicial review by noon on Thursday, even though the Department’s lawyer conceded that Marbury v. Madison is good law and even though Obama himself never went so far yesterday as to say that the Supreme Court lacks the power to overturn laws.

  4. SacTownMan says:

    Never, ever question the great Xerxes!!!
    That whole Constitution thing is so OLD anyway!!!
    11/6/12 can’t come soon enough!!!!!
    Time to take back our Republic!!!

  5. Ragspierre says:

    Wonderful to see the push-back by grown-ups in the CO-EQUAL judiciary…!!!

  6. CaptainAmerica says:

    Wing nuts root for the power of activist judges. Hilarious.

  7. Xiaoding says:

    Mr. Obama was making a political statement, not a constitutional one.
    Now, the judges are ALSO making a political statement.
    The DOJ should refuse to write the letter. Screw the judges.

  8. Fred Beloit says:

    Asshats rail against activist judges. You can’t make crazy up to this nutty level.

  9. Ragspierre says:

    How is defending the Constitution from a Collectivist reactionary take-over “activist”, Cap-it-ANUS???

  10. Ragspierre says:

    dingy…meds…
    Seriously.

  11. CaptainAmerica says:

    Defending the Constitution. BS. More like rewriting the Constitution.
    “Now, is it within the power of Congress? Well, the power of Congress is to regulate interstate commerce. Is health care commerce among the states? Nobody except maybe Clarence Thomas doubts that. So health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.
    Here’s another thing Marshall said. To regulate is “to make the rule for.” Does this make a rule for commerce? Yes!”
    Charles Fried is a professor of law at Harvard University. From 1985 to 1989, he served as President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general.

  12. Ragspierre says:

    Fried is completely fried.
    After listening to the arguments, only an idiot (you DO recognize yourself here, right?) would say only Justice Thomas has grave doubts about the mandate.
    You don’t understand the first thing about the Constitution, history, or America.
    But you are a great example of the Collective…!!!

  13. Xiaoding says:

    Rags: show the law that that gives judges authority to order the DOJ to write a paper. Or shut up.
    Cap: what is your point?

  14. Ragspierre says:

    “Rags: show the law that that gives judges authority to order the DOJ to write a paper. Or shut up.”
    It is called a “brief”, stupid.
    It happens every day, many, many hundreds of times in courts all across the land.

  15. SacTownMan says:

    Sorry there Capn’ but your little “god king” is only 1/3 of the equation. After the November elections you and your loser, troll friends will control 0/3 branches of the government in the biggest ass kicking in modern election history!!
    It’s that pesky Constitution thing again.
    Those judges you’ve latched onto could only wish they were on the Supreme Court, maybe then their opinion might actually MEAN something!!
    But hey come November you and all of your troll friends will have lots of time on your hands after Xerxes and his Chicago slime crew are tossed out on their criminal asses.
    Time to crawl back under your rock, douche bag!!!

  16. CaptainAmerica says:

    In his 27-page opinion, Judge Sutton said that the health care law meets the classic tests that the Supreme Court has imposed in deciding whether Congress has acted within its authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the provision that empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce or matters that otherwise “substantially affect” interstate commerce.
    Furthermore, wrote Sutton, “No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care, as self-insurance and private insurance are two forms of action for addressing the same risk. Each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce.”
    Those opposed to the health care law raise good questions, he said, based on an intuition that this law cannot be constitutional. But “[n]ot every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law,” wrote Sutton.

  17. CaptainAmerica says:

    Mitt beat Obama. That’s funny.
    Obama, yesterday:
    “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.” Obama added.
    …….
    Wing nuts, who’ve attacked the horrors of judicial activism for years, you know, over-turning democratically passed laws, now want the Supreme Court to do EXACTLY what they supposedly hate.
    Hypocrites!!!

  18. CaptainAmerica says:

    Speaking of hypocritrs, two guys Rags supportrd to become our next president.
    “Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry said during a GOP candidates forum Tuesday night that the Supreme Court should not be able to challenge anti-abortion measures.
    Gingrich said legislation he would support as president would prohibit judicial review. Perry simply asserted that he would ignore a negative ruling by the Supreme Court in such a case.”

  19. Ragspierre says:

    Cap-it-ANUS…as usual…is confused by words. This is common among the morons of the Collective.
    Finding a “right” that would have been anathema to the Founders is “judicial activism”. Or creating law from dicta.
    Interpretation of Constitutional meaning is not “judicial activism”, and while we often DO disagree with the interpretations, we do not attack the authority of our courts to make those calls. See Warning, Miranda; see also United, Citizens.
    Idiot.

  20. Ragspierre says:

    “Gingrich said legislation he would support as president would prohibit judicial review. Perry simply asserted that he would ignore a negative ruling by the Supreme Court in such a case.”
    Let’s see your source, Cap-it-ANUS.
    IFFFFFF they said that, they are wrong. You can’t legislate away judicial review.
    (You may want to pass that along to President Pond-scum…along with your recommendation he stop his contempt of several courts… ‘K…???)

  21. CaptainAmerica says:

    BS.
    Rags, a Gingrich supporter:
    Newt Gingrich has pledged that on his first day as president he will set up a constitutional showdown by ordering the military to defy a supreme court ruling extending some legal rights to foreign terrorism suspects and captured enemy combatants in US custody.
    The Republican contender told a forum of anti-abortion activists ahead of South Carolina’s primary election that as president he would ignore supreme court rulings he regards as legally flawed. He implied that would also extend to the 1973 decision, Roe vs Wade, legalising abortion.
    “If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it,” said Gingrich to cheers.
    …….
    [T]he Jeffersonians eliminated 18 out of 35 federal judges — didn’t impeach them, just abolished their offices — told them to go home. Now, I’m not — let me be clear — I am not as bold as Jefferson. I think the judge in San Antonio would be an important initial signal, and I think the 9th Circuit Court should be served notice that it runs the risk of ceasing to exist. […]
    [T]here are other steps you could take that — that are far short of wiping out half the judges. One, you can hold hearings. I — I think for the Congress to bring in Judge Biery from San Antonio and say to him, explain to us your rationale…[if judges] knew that when they were radically wrong they’d be hauled in front of Congress would immediately have a sobering effect about how much power they have.
    …….
    You need to retread what Obama said. He affirmed the power of the Supreme Court and judicial review.
    It’s Republicans who’ve threatened to ignore the SCOTUS and attack judicial review.
    Hypocrites!!!!!!

  22. Ragspierre says:

    “You need to retread what Obama said. He affirmed the power of the Supreme Court and judicial review.”
    No, we only need to recite what he said.
    As he typically does, he makes two completely contradictory statements. This is pure Alinsky.
    He does it constantly. Haven’t you noticed…??? Are you that moronic…???
    And PART of what Gingrich said is exactly correct. You don’t pretend that the judiciary is sacrosanct, and cannot be made amenable to the other two branches, do you?
    Are you seriously THAT stupid…???

  23. SacTownMan says:

    Ever notice that trolls NEVER link anything?

  24. CaptainAmerica says:

    BS. Show where Obama has ever said, as both Perry and Gingrich have, that he would ignore SCOTUS decisions.

  25. Ragspierre says:

    As he typically does, he makes two completely contradictory statements. This is pure Alinsky.
    He does it constantly. Haven’t you noticed…??? Are you that moronic…???
    And PART of what Gingrich said is exactly correct. You don’t pretend that the judiciary is sacrosanct, and cannot be made amenable to the other two branches, do you?
    Are you seriously THAT stupid…???

  26. Ragspierre says:

    “Show where Obama has ever said, as both Perry and Gingrich have, that he would ignore SCOTUS decisions.”
    I’ll do better…
    He IS ignoring BOTH the legislature and judiciary WRT the Defense of Marriage Act.
    You really are too damn stupid to live.

  27. CaptainAmerica says:

    Answer MY question, not one you’ve made up:
    “Show where Obama has ever said, as both Perry and Gingrich have, that he would ignore SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decisions?

  28. Ragspierre says:

    I’ll do better…
    He IS ignoring BOTH the legislature and judiciary WRT the Defense of Marriage Act.
    You really are too damn stupid to live.
    Still…
    AND…
    too stupid to comprehend when you’ve had your ass handed to you.

  29. CaptainAmerica says:

    Since you refuse to answer the actual question, I’ll take that as admission you have no example of Obama saying he’d ignore SCOTUS.
    In contrast, two candidates Rags has supported, Perry and Gingrich, are on record saying they’d ignore SCOTUS decisions.
    Yet Rags never complained about Perry and Gingrich admissions. But he attacks Obama for something he never said.
    Hypocrite!!!!

  30. Ragspierre says:

    I’ll do better…
    He IS ignoring BOTH the legislature and judiciary WRT the Defense of Marriage Act.
    You really are too damn stupid to live.
    Still…
    AND…
    too stupid to comprehend when you’ve had your ass handed to you.
    PLUS…
    And PART of what Gingrich said is exactly correct. You don’t pretend that the judiciary is sacrosanct, and cannot be made amenable to the other two branches, do you?
    Are you seriously THAT stupid…???
    ADDITIONALLY,
    where did I say Bad Luck Barry said he would ignore a SCOTUS ruling (as opposed to ACTUALLY ACTING to ignore BOTH the legislature and judiciary)?
    Hmmmm….????
    What I DID do is refer you to the Obamic attack (the incredibly STOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooopid and factually FALSE attack) on the Court to attempt ex parte to influence their decision.

  31. Ragspierre says:

    Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”
    The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.
    ———————————————————————
    And the SCOTUS has supported the law.
    But Barackah The First decided it will be ignored.
    You poor, stupid, lying Collectivist pwn.

  32. CaptainAmerica says:

    Rags claims: “And the SCOTUS has supported the law.”
    BS. SCOTUS has not ruled on DOMA.
    Not only a hypocrite but a liar as well.

  33. Ragspierre says:

    Has the SCOTUS taking DOMA on its docket?
    No.
    That is a ruling.
    You poor, stupid, lying Collectivist pwn.

  34. Ragspierre says:

    ADDITIONALLY,
    where did I say Bad Luck Barry said he would ignore a SCOTUS ruling (as opposed to ACTUALLY ACTING to ignore BOTH the legislature and judiciary)?
    Hmmmm….????

  35. CaptainAmerica says:

    Rags claims SCOTUS supports DOMA then admits they haven’t actually ruled on it.
    Lots of presidents have used signing statements to state they aren’t going to enforce laws. Obama’s not the first. Bush, Reagan both did it.

  36. Ragspierre says:

    “Lots of presidents have used signing statements to state they aren’t going to enforce laws.”
    Which has nothing to do with this discussion (although it is anOTHER excellent example of a Obama lie).
    ADDITIONALLY,
    where did I say Bad Luck Barry said he would ignore a SCOTUS ruling (as opposed to ACTUALLY ACTING to ignore BOTH the legislature and judiciary)?
    Hmmmm….????

  37. CaptainAmerica says:

    The 5th circuit judge said that it’s unclear to him if Obama believes in judicial review. You wrote your enthusiastic support of his statements.
    “Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional”
    So do you believe Obama supports judicial review or not?

  38. Ragspierre says:

    “Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional”
    Which is a totally reasonable question in light of…
    “I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress,” President Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.
    “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said to the White House press.
    Innit…???
    You poor, stupid, lying Collectivist SOS.

  39. CaptainAmerica says:

    It’s a simple question, do you believe Obama supports judicial review.
    Try answering with yes or no.

  40. Ragspierre says:

    No, it isn’t a simple question.
    It it made a vexed question by Obama’s Alinsky-mode double-speak.
    I don’t know what American principle Obama believes in.
    Judging by his conduct, “none” would be the only correct answer to date.

  41. CaptainAmerica says:

    Alpha Wingnut Ragspierre write the most moronic statement yet|:
    “I don’t know what American principle Obama believes in.
    Judging by his conduct, “none” would be the only correct answer to date.”

  42. Ragspierre says:

    Note the devastating rational argument in support of Obama by Cap-it-ANUS.
    No, wait…
    There is no rational argument. Just a moron calling me a moron.
    Meh. Typical Collectivist.

  43. Xiaoding says:

    “It is called a “brief”, stupid.
    It happens every day, many, many hundreds of times in courts all across the land.”
    A “brief” as you call it has to do with a CASE. The judge was NOT asking for a brief on a CASE. The judge should therefore be told to SUCK it.
    Idiot.

  44. Xiaoding says:

    “”Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional””
    Then Smith is a moron, because what a President BELEIVES is irrelevant! NO ONE CARES.

  45. Ragspierre says:

    The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
    The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
    ***This is called a “case”, dingy.***
    The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
    ***The DOJ has a client; the Executive Branch, of which the President is chief officer. What he contests IS relevent, you dope.***

  46. Huey says:

    There is nothing … not one thing … which a man can do (or not do) which doesn’t in some fashion affect commerce positively or negatively.
    (Check out Wickard v. Filburn for early SCOTUS thinking on this subject…)
    This is the thinking of progressives, of statists. If this predicate is true, then the commerce clause subsumes, entirely, the rest of the Constitution (other than the Amendments).
    This is the thinking which at least four of our current Justices will adhere to – no matter what their written “reasons” say.
    This case may be the most important case in the history of SCOTUS after Marbury.
    I hope they get it right.

  47. Ragspierre says:

    100% Huey.
    By striking Wickard’s STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooopid precedent down, the Court COULD go far in restoring the Founder’s intent of a limited central government.
    Sadly, I think that is too much to hope for…much less expect.

  48. Princy says:

    As I prepare for whsroip to celebrate the Blessing from the Heavenly Father who paid the ultimate Atonement for a filthy rag like me I must reflect on all that my Heavenly father has done for me.Lying in the middle of my living room floor wanting to die because the man I thought I loved had just walked out on me and his child, When recieving a phone call that not only have you lost on brother but now another one is gone. When you’ve been unemployed for over a year yet nothing has ever been cut off, still having shelter even when you haven’t paid a house note in a year and people tend to look at me when I praise him the way that I do You Don’t Know My Story Chuckie I love the Church and a lot more of us who say we christian should be shouting the stories with Joy and Peace of how our Savior lives.Celebrate JESUS CHRIST everyday not just one day!Peace and Blessing to all MEN. (let me go and get my praise on).

  49. Rickey says:

    Street repaving, lhtigs, security cameras, a dog park and bike racks. You can see the proposals at Mess Hall until 6 pm Wednesday. But the catch is that the residents of the 49th Ward will now voice their opinion on what should

  50. Christine says:

    Well .save your two hundred oalldrs. You don’t need to spend a cent to make money online. I make money by just filling out surveys and offers. I don’t want to breach the terms and whatnot, so if you’re interested, I have a link on my profile to my favorite survey/offer sites. Good luck to you!

  51. Rashmi says:

    Fidatevi sono screen della vsneiore Wii. Questo gioco sfrutta il motore grafico di Spyborgs che (anche se non lo sa nessuno perch Spyborgs non se lo filato di striscio nessuno) tra i migliori mai fatti per Wii.

  52. Akshita says:

    Potrebbe anche non essere afftato male ma voglio aspettare qualche news in pi anche per la trama ed il game play. Comunque devo dire che mi sembra che qualcosa si stia muovendo.

  53. Kenny says:

    His hairstyle and tneglh of hair on video of interview and at the time he got passport is the same. So is his dress, same shirt, same necktie. I would guess the video was made on the same day.

  54. Otoniel says:

    It might appear to be a lot if you aren’t in the uistation that I am. It only took a short while to read your entry and now I have a preliminary understanding which I know many people miss. Do not quit producing at this quality.

  55. Yuuki says:

    Your information nitedifely fills a need. I’ve been trying to find this kind of content and you really came through. Can you believe that that which you have written just about accurately replicates my own experience.

  56. Houda says:

    to people in a forum held in Jaffna that If icople powers are given to Tamil province now It will act as another para military. But what I commented was seriously criticized. The bloody elitist scoundrel living in Europe and USA wish to make another fight in Sri Lanka. Because their children will be never affected .Do you agree or not?Regards,Bharthipan

  57. Selly says:

    I agree with you. Forget about Geneva. We have to reconcile with Sinhalese and Muslims oefbre power-sharing in Sri Lanka. I accept we have conflict among us but Indian made it worse in 1987 and now American making the situation lot more muddy.I will place my view soon. we are idiots chasing the mirage in intellectual Sahara desert.kind regards