Obama warns Supreme Court

[HankD]

In a unprecedented dictator like way:

Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rt-will-uphold-health-care-law/#ixzz1qvauQows

HankD

 

[Don]

I thought Obama was some kind of constitution professor? And he implies that the Supreme Court somehow doesn't have the authority to overturn federal laws?

Wow.

 

[HankD]

I thought Obama was some kind of constitution professor? And he implies that the Supreme Court somehow doesn't have the authority to overturn federal laws?

Wow.

Constitution professor or not, apparently he has never heard of (or cares about) the separation of powers:

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating from the United States Constitution, according to which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of Separation of Powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

Four more years?

HankD

 

[carpro]

In a unprecedented dictator like way:



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rt-will-uphold-health-care-law/#ixzz1qvauQows

HankD

FDR reprise.

Power hungry liberals are all alike.

 

[Don]

Four more years?

HankD

I'm afraid, unfortunately, yes.

 

[billwald]

>Supreme Court somehow doesn't have the authority to overturn federal laws?

Only by case law, not specifically stated in the Constitution. You all support a strict construction/interpretation of the Constitution, right? You all reject rule by case law, yes? There is historical precedent that the president can ignore the Supremes.

 

[Don]

>Supreme Court somehow doesn't have the authority to overturn federal laws?

Only by case law, not specifically stated in the Constitution. You all support a strict construction/interpretation of the Constitution, right? You all reject rule by case law, yes? There is historical precedent that the president can ignore the Supremes.

But that brings up an even stickier situation, doesn't it? What happens if the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the President ignores that and tries to enforce it? States then have legal precedent to refrain from complying ... which would necessarily lead to the President having to make a decision about how to deal with that state, or those states, that refuse to comply. And in an election year, no less.

 

[Jedi Knight]

But that brings up an even stickier situation, doesn't it? What happens if the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the President ignores that and tries to enforce it? States then have legal precedent to refrain from complying ... which would necessarily lead to the President having to make a decision about how to deal with that state, or those states, that refuse to comply. And in an election year, no less.

So that said, what would our founding fathers do about this?

 

[carpro]

So that said, what would our founding fathers do about this?

They would never have passed it in the first place.

OTOH It's kind of like the tea tax. We know how that turned out.

 

[Arbo]

Could it be Obama sees a bit of writing on the wall, and is in spin mode?

Wouldn't surprise me if something were leaked to him. After all Sotamayor (sp?) was one of his lackeys, and had a part in this law.

 

[Arbo]

Just saw a headline on Drudge asking if there was a leak.

 

[carpro]

Could it be Obama sees a bit of writing on the wall, and is in spin mode?

Wouldn't surprise me if something were leaked to him. After all Sotamayor (sp?) was one of his lackeys, and had a part in this law.

It was Kagan, and she refuses to recuse herself. Dishonorable liberal idealogue till the end.

 

[Arbo]

It was Kagan, and she refuses to recuse herself. Dishonorable liberal idealogue till the end.

Ah, you are right. I got the two mixed up in my precaffeinated state of mind.

 

[saturneptune]

>Supreme Court somehow doesn't have the authority to overturn federal laws?

Only by case law, not specifically stated in the Constitution. You all support a strict construction/interpretation of the Constitution, right? You all reject rule by case law, yes? There is historical precedent that the president can ignore the Supremes.

The only Supremes the President can ignore is the one that has Diana Ross. Ask Richard Nixon about ignoring Supreme Court rulings.

 

[revmwc]

Just looking back at the constitution and was wondering if violating the constitution on seperation of powers would today be comsidered a other high Crime or Misdemeanor worthy of impeachment and disqualification from office?
I believe our forefathers would have thought so, but that doesn't mean today's lawmakers and justices would consider it to be.

 

[saturneptune]

Just looking back at the constitution and was wondering if violating the constitution on seperation of powers would today be comsidered a other high Crime or Misdemeanor worthy of impeachment and disqualification from office?
I believe our forefathers would have thought so, but that doesn't mean today's lawmakers and justices would consider it to be.

Republicans controlled the Senate when Clinton was impeached, and he was not convicted. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate, and the Senate is Democratiic. I do think with the present House, articles of impeachment would be approved.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Obama's true colors are just coming out. He has to feel good about his chances with a weak Republican candidate to face in the general election. As he told the Russians, "I will have more freedom after the election."

May God have mercy upon us all. We have reaped what we have sown by focusing on political solutions to everything at the expense of living, practicing and proclaiming the true Gospel.

 

[saturneptune]

Obama's true colors are just coming out. He has to feel good about his chances with a weak Republican candidate to face in the general election. As he told the Russians, "I will have more freedom after the election."

May God have mercy upon us all. We have reaped what we have sown by focusing on political solutions to everything at the expense of living, practicing and proclaiming the true Gospel.

Please convey that to the 98% on this board who think electing Romney is the solution to Obama.

 

[revmwc]

Please convey that to the 98% on this board who think electing Romney is the solution to Obama.

I don't think anyone sees Romney as the soution to Obama, just the lesser and that aint much of two evils. UI still see Sanatorum haviong a chance, he is a little better, right now we have no viable candidate to win over Obama except Sanatorum. Romney is worse than McCain ever thought of being. G H W Bushh would be the best choice over any of these and he still not much of one. We haven't had a good choice since Reagan.

 

[saturneptune]

I don't think anyone sees Romney as the soution to Obama, just the lesser and that aint much of two evils. UI still see Sanatorum haviong a chance, he is a little better, right now we have no viable candidate to win over Obama except Sanatorum. Romney is worse than McCain ever thought of being. G H W Bushh would be the best choice over any of these and he still not much of one. We haven't had a good choice since Reagan.

Thank you for that refreshing post which is light years in understanding ahead of those who belittle those of us who refuse to vote for someone with the character of Romney.