Was Obama really a constitutional law professor?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

"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," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

This statement hit me really hard yesterday. It would seem that our president believes any law passed by a democratically elected body is exempt from following the US Constitution, and that the Supreme court has never struck down a law that has been passed by a majority. This is why we have three separate branches of government, to protect the people from this kind of mob ideology.  Also, I wouldn't call 219-212 a strong majority, especially since the last 4 democrat votes had to be purchased by him.

[kstatefreak42]

Obama has burned the Constitution. Period. He is a joke.

[star seed 7]

he said he doesn't think the SC will strike down the law.

you take from this that he doesn't believe in a 3 branch system.

i don't really know what to say....

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

he said he doesn't think the SC will strike down the law.

you take from this that he doesn't believe in a 3 branch system.

i don't really know what to say....

He stated that the Supreme court has never (unprecedented) struck down a law that was voted on by congress, which is false. He also says it would be "extraordinary", but that is the purpose of the supreme court, to interpret the constitution. Nothing extraordinary about it. It would be extraordinary and unprecedented to force everyone purchase insurance from private companies under duress.

[star seed 7]

unprecedented - yes, a misuse of the word, and mostly just exaggeration and political speak.

extraordinary - i don't see your objection to this word being used.  please correct me if i'm wrong, but the supreme court does not regularly/often/most times/ordinarily strike down laws passed by congress.  yes it has happened, but it is not a common occurance.

just seems like you are taking a pretty big jump here.

he talked up his bill, pretty much the way any politician would.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

unprecedented - yes, a misuse of the word, and mostly just exaggeration and political speak.

extraordinary - i don't see your objection to this word being used.  please correct me if i'm wrong, but the supreme court does not regularly/often/most times/ordinarily strike down laws passed by congress.  yes it has happened, but it is not a common occurance.

just seems like you are taking a pretty big jump here.

he talked up his bill, pretty much the way any politician would.

Speaking of big jumps, "strong majority" is a pretty big leap for a bill that passed by seven votes on a Saturday night without a debate or even being read by anybody that voted for it. He's just become laughable.

[06wildcat]

If the SC nullifies the mandate in the health care law, it's going to be great to watch as Republicans slowly realize that Social Security privatization is also unconstitutional.

[kstatefreak42]

How can anybody support this guy?

[ednksu]

first: he is lobbying the court nothing more
second: what do you want him to say?  Yeah its all bullshit?  Compare it to the AAA? 
third: what has he destroyed in the constitution? what specific examples can you point to?

[p1k3]

first: he is lobbying the court nothing more
second: what do you want him to say?  Yeah its all bullshit?  Compare it to the AAA? 
third: what has he destroyed in the constitution? what specific examples can you point to?

Off the top of my head Obama has taken two huge dumps on the constitution via extending the Patriot Act and NDAA

edit: set the precedent for assasinating American citizens. Bombed more countries than Bush without going through congress or even letting the American people know about it

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

first: he is lobbying the court nothing more
second: what do you want him to say?  Yeah its all bullshit?  Compare it to the AAA? 
third: what has he destroyed in the constitution? what specific examples can you point to?

I think he was lobbying his supporters, not the court. His public pleas will have no affect on the SCOTUS.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

He sounds like an ignorant rough ridin' ass.

All he does is whine and complain and pout. We might as well have any 80 yr old hag as Pres. I bet when neighbor kids lose a frisbee over the fence at the WH, he yells at them to stay off the lawn and trashes the bee.

 

[ednksu]

first: he is lobbying the court nothing more
second: what do you want him to say?  Yeah its all bullshit?  Compare it to the AAA? 
third: what has he destroyed in the constitution? what specific examples can you point to?

I think he was lobbying his supporters, not the court. His public pleas will have no affect on the SCOTUS.

if you've studied the court that is COMPLETELY untrue. 

[ednksu]

first: he is lobbying the court nothing more
second: what do you want him to say?  Yeah its all bullshit?  Compare it to the AAA? 
third: what has he destroyed in the constitution? what specific examples can you point to?

Off the top of my head Obama has taken two huge dumps on the constitution via extending the Patriot Act and NDAA

edit: set the precedent for assasinating American citizens. Bombed more countries than Bush without going through congress or even letting the American people know about it

404 your posts bitching about this 4 years ago.

Also the assassination of American citizens is not a new thing. 

People need to stop giving Obama all this credit.  Although he is at fault for using these new found executive powers.

[HeinBallz]

404 your posts bitching about this 4 years ago.

Also the assassination of American citizens is not a new thing. 

People need to stop giving Obama all this credit. Although he is at fault for using these new found executive powers.

nothing new

[ednksu]

404 your posts bitching about this 4 years ago.

Also the assassination of American citizens is not a new thing. 

People need to stop giving Obama all this credit. Although he is at fault for using these new found executive powers.

nothing new

new since Nixon and expanding ever since.  I would say a pretty good expansion under Bush as well.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

404 your posts bitching about this 4 years ago.

Also the assassination of American citizens is not a new thing. 

People need to stop giving Obama all this credit. Although he is at fault for using these new found executive powers.

nothing new

new since Nixon and expanding ever since.  I would say a pretty good expansion under Bush as well.

MURDERER!!!!        THOU SHALT NOT BE COMPLICIT       MURDERER!!!!

[p1k3]

Bush and Obama use the Constitution as toilet paper

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/?hpt=hp_bn4

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/_reporter_to_carney_obama_made_a_mistake_and_you_cant_admit_it.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577323802316101544.html


The anti-intellectual left will apologize for Obama's stupidity until they are blue in the face.  It's great, more evidence to stack on the heaping pile of evidence that they are nothing more than a bunch of frauds who stand for nothing. 

[star seed 7]

He sounds like an ignorant rough ridin' ass.

All he does is whine and complain and pout. We might as well have any 80 yr old hag as Pres. I bet when neighbor kids lose a frisbee over the fence at the WH, he yells at them to stay off the lawn and trashes the bee.

 

this is exactly how i imagine you are.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

first: he is lobbying the court nothing more
second: what do you want him to say?  Yeah its all bullshit?  Compare it to the AAA? 
third: what has he destroyed in the constitution? what specific examples can you point to?

I think he was lobbying his supporters, not the court. His public pleas will have no affect on the SCOTUS.

if you've studied the court that is COMPLETELY untrue.

Not sure what you are implying here. Are you saying that the executive branch has direct influence over of the judicial branch in complete defiance of the constitution? I understand that that judicial appointments and supreme court nominations have become political, but once they are seated, the executive branch has no influence. The supreme courts only job is to interpret laws and and make rulings based on the constitution. It seems pretty stupid for a president to try and influence their opinion with insults and condescending quips in public. If he wants to bitch about it in his memoirs, fine, but to do it as president is embarrassing. 

[ednksu]

first: he is lobbying the court nothing more
second: what do you want him to say?  Yeah its all bullshit?  Compare it to the AAA? 
third: what has he destroyed in the constitution? what specific examples can you point to?

I think he was lobbying his supporters, not the court. His public pleas will have no affect on the SCOTUS.

if you've studied the court that is COMPLETELY untrue.

Not sure what you are implying here. Are you saying that the executive branch has direct influence over of the judicial branch in complete defiance of the constitution? I understand that that judicial appointments and supreme court nominations have become political, but once they are seated, the executive branch has no influence. The supreme courts only job is to interpret laws and and make rulings based on the constitution. It seems pretty stupid for a president to try and influence their opinion with insults and condescending quips in public. If he wants to bitch about it in his memoirs, fine, but to do it as president is embarrassing.

dude you're smarter than this.  You said public pleas have no effect which is completely false.  The SCOTUS has a long history of punting issues or deciding on issues quickly when public and governmental voices grow.  That is all I was getting at.  The 9 wise do listen to various forms of public opinion. 

[kstatefreak42]

Constitutional expert Judge Andrew Napolitano says he fears that the president is skirting “dangerously close to totalitarianism” with his recent questioning of the authority of the Supreme Court to conduct a review of ObamaCare.

“A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.” Napolitano said

“Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”

“I think he has some problems with understanding the Constitution or accepting limitations on his power.” the Judge added.

In essence, Obama appears to be making the case that the Constitution is outdated because it allows for “an unelected group of people” to make judicial decisions.

“There are equal branches of the government, but with respect to what the law means and what the Constitution means, the court is superior to the president.” Napolitano noted.

“No president in modern times has questioned their authority.”

“This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson.” The Judge urged.

[ednksu]

I pretty much stopped reading with the smart part of my brain when you quoted something (fox news?) saying Napolitano was a "constitutional expert"......but.....

how does Obama fit into these widely accepted categories?
an elaborating guiding ideology;
a single mass party, typically led by a dictator;
a system of terror;
a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force;
and central direction, and control of the economy through state planning.

[kstatefreak42]

I pretty much stopped reading with the smart part of my brain when you quoted something (fox news?) saying Napolitano was a "constitutional expert"......but.....

how does Obama fit into these widely accepted categories?
an elaborating guiding ideology;
a single mass party, typically led by a dictator;
a system of terror;
a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force;
and central direction, and control of the economy through state planning.

You dont have a brain.