639.) President Obama has a diluted view of the world that he lives in, and a perverted understanding of the office that he holds. He fancies himself asthe head of our government, master of the subservient branches. He fails to realize that he is but one piece of a three part system. The other two branches of government, the congress, and the courts, are not lesser entities meant to bow before him, but rather equals who serve beside him. That was the whole concept behind the way the founders laid out our Republic. If they had wanted one man to have power over all, they would not have gone through the painstaking steps of creating a two housed legislator, a federal court, and the executive branch. They would have simply made Washington king and been done with it. Washington had no intention of being king, and our founders feared the slavery that giving one man unlimited power would bring to the nation. So there is a system of checks and balances placed upon the branches to prevent anyone from gaining power over the other. This helps to insure that the laws of the land are followed by the citizens who inhabit the seats in our capitol.
Well this is no good for President Obama; laws are a troublesome thing when you are trying to convert a free nation into a communist state. So any time these checks are applied on the Presidents power he throws a fit and strikes out at those who dare stand in his way. This time the victim of this verbal assault is the Supreme Court of the United States.
What, you might ask, has the Supreme Court done that has President Obama so up in arms? Well, nothing, all they have done is heard oral arguments about the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care bill. The discussion did not appear favorable to the bill as many statements questioned the fundamental principles behind the individual mandate. Statements like the one made by Justice Kennedy “Can you create commerce to regulate it?” made everyone take notice, and put President Obama on edge.
As I said President Obama is the head of the United States government, it is President Obama’s job to keep the lesser branches in line. He has to make sure that they don’t get this notion that they are able to overturn his policies. So he had a few things to say to the Supreme Court of The United States “Ultimately I am confident that 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” He then continued “And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack ofjudicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn aduly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Back in the real world, where laws exist, President Obama is not the head of the United States government he is merely one of three equal branches. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches were designed as equal parts of the government, each having a series of checks on the other to make sure that the system did not come out of balance. So seeing as President Obama is not king, it would probably be a good idea for us to check the validity of his statements. Yes it is now time for a history lesson, yes history the bane of Progressives everywhere as it dispels the myths that they build up around their radical agenda.
We might as well start at the beginning with “Ultimately I am confidentthat the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented,extraordinary step of overturning a law” is it really unprecedented, or extraordinary for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by congress? The answer is no, the Supreme Court has, as of 2002, overturned a total of 1,315 laws, 158 of those being Federal laws passed by a democratically elected congress. The concept of judicial review has been established sense 1789. So President Obama was wrong, it is not unprecedented, in fact there exists almost two centuries of precedents.
Moving right along “of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” This statement is nothing more than an example of President Obama trying to rewrite history; he is lying to us, hoping we are too ignorant to catch him. Let’s turn the clocks back, tothat far off time of 2010. The House of Representatives has 435 members, in March of 2010 the Democrat party had a 75 seat majority. The United States Senate has 100 members with the Democrats holding 58 seats, with two independents that caucus with them. When Obama care was passed, it passed in the house by a vote of 219-212, it passed in the Senate by a vote of 60-39. So of the possible 535 votes on Capitol Hill Obama care received only 279, or only 52%, that is not a strong majority. So yes Obama care was passed by a democratically elected congress, but it was not a strong majority, President Obama either forgot, or he is lying to us.
Next on the chopping block, “And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on thebench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” Okay well let’s take a look at this claim of judicial activism, or lack ofjudicial restraint.
Judicial Activism: is when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of Congress, rather than limiting itself to the powerstraditionally given to the judiciary.
So how would striking down Obama care be a case of judicial activism? Is the court making law from the bench, no, is the court creating a new power for itself, no. So would overturning Obama care be a case of judicial activism, no.
Judicial Restraint: is a legal term that describes a type of judicial interpretation that emphasizes the limited nature of the court’s power.Judicial restraint asks judges to base their judicial decisions solely on the concept of stare decisis, which refers to an obligation of the court to honor previous decisions.
So would overturning Obama care be an example of a lack of judicial restraint? No it wouldn’t, it is within the Supreme Court’s power to strike down a law if it is unconstitutional. So the answer to this question is also no.
Two more claims go down in smoke, the claims made by the President are falling faster than American’s patients with the price of gas. The next claim we will examine is that of “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Unelected, he just said that the Supreme Court of The United States of America is unelected? I guess technically he is correct, the Supreme Court Justices are not elected by a popular vote, but in all reality they are elected. The President appoints members of a court, they then have to be approved by the United States Senate, which is done by a vote, so yes they are elected. I would like to point out to President Obama that these “unelected” people have more authority, are more legitimate, and are more accountable to the people than half of his cabinet. I guess President Obama forgot about all of the Czars that he has appointed, who approved them, what are they doing to the laws of this country, who are they accountable too? Are they accountable to the senators, the people of the United States? No of course not, they are only accountable, and loyal to the president. President Obama has appointed over 42 Czars in his presidency. The character of these 42 individuals is sketchy at best, there are members of the communist party, members of Acorn, and of course there was Van Jones (who has sense resigned due to the outrage of his appointment). What are these people doing, these individuals who are part of our government but don’t have to be approved by the Senate like normal cabinet positions do. This may seem like I am trying to make something out of nothing, but the reason I bring these individuals up is because President Obama is the last person who should be trying to take the moral high ground when it comes to letting”unelected” people make decisions about how the country is to be run,he does it all the time. (Cue the progressive left onslaught).
Finally, this is the part that makes me sick to my stomach, President Obama had the audacity to call his health care law a “duly constituted and passed law”. The law was not duly passed; they played tricks to slipped it past the rules of the Senate via the reconciliation process. Reconciliation allows a bill to become law with a simple majority vote rather than the usual 61 votes needed in the Senate.There are rules about using this process, one of which is that the bill in question cannot add to the deficit. Well due to some progressive funny math, the bill looked as though it passed that rule, unfortunately, if the senators had actually read the bill that they voted for they would have realized that there was a critical issue with Obama care. That issue is that it double counted the savings in Medicare.The revenues generated under the law were to go to funding benefits to already insured members. These same revenues were also supposed to some how fund an expansion of Medicare. So if the revenues go to cover the new benefits, then congress has to spend more money to fund the expansion. If the revenues go to cover the expansion, congress has to authorize more spending to cover the benefits, thus you have an increase in the deficit. So no Obama care was not a duly constituted and passed law.
Now of course there are going to be those who will read this and accuse me of being racist, a hater, ignorant, and try to defend the law. The fact is that whether or not you agree with the law is irrelevant, the biggest issue here is that the President of the United States is not only lying to the American Public but trying to assert dominance onto one of the other branches of government. I don’t know if it stems from immaturity or arrogance but it is a terrifying thought, the executive branch trying to make the other branches irrelevant.
I know this is not the first time that a President has challenged the court,Andrew Jackson was probably the first time, and there have been others. I do not support one branch trying to belittle the others. I would also like to point out that this is not the first time that President Obama has tried to bully the Supreme Court. He called them out in his first State of The Union Address, and lets not forget that he ignored their ruling on the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.