Quantcast

BARACK OBAMA, CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORAMUS

Yo'Adrienne..AFCL 2012/04/11 14:47:23
I heard the President's latest outrageous lie. What's up with this guy? Is he as dumb as he sounds or does he think we are as dumb as he sounds?
He is telling the many Americans who know nothing about the Constitution or legal history what he wants them to think.
Is he brilliant .....OR WHAT???????
“It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda.”
You!
Add Photos & Videos

I’m grateful for the favor Obama did for us yesterday of exposing his extreme constitutional ignorance, with his comments on how it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to strike down a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. (As if a House margin of seven votes is a “strong” majority.) True, he walked back the comment today, but surely because his statement was not merely indefensible but outright embarrassing to his media defenders.


I’ve been growing weary of hearing people mention that he’s a “constitutional scholar,” since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But hey—he taught constitutional law, didn’t he?
NOT REALLY!


His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—the favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself.


I have a copy of one of his final exams. It is a long hypothetical involving civil rights, which begins thus:



In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited economic means at the disposal of the black community. It is also well documented, however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.


So you can see what kind of “narrative” this exam question promotes, and hence the kind of answers likely to get an A from Professor Obama. One of the questions students are asked is, “What is the likelihood that the city will be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of blacks under the Equal Protection Clause. . .” There’s a second hypothetical involving potential gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
A law student in Professor Obama’s class would learn virtually nothing about the constitutionalism of the Founding, or even of John Marshall or Joseph Story.


Now, clearly Obama is hoping to intimidate the Court in the same way FDR did in 1937 with his court-packing scheme. Some time later I’ll discuss FDR’s extraordinary rhetoric attacking the Court that year, but suffice it to say for now that Obama already showed his hand with his inaccurate attack on the Citizens United decision in the State of the Union speech two years ago. As John Steele Gordon put it well, “It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda.”


Notwithstanding the fact that Justice Alito could be seen mouthing the words, “Not true,” the Supreme Court by its traditions does not hit back at the President or Congress in these kind of brawls. But thank goodness for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which today rather tartly demanded that the Justice Department please explain, in at least three pages, within 48 hours, its understanding of judicial review. This should be interesting. Here’s a copy of the follow-up letter from the court:



Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • JimmyIIX 2012/05/25 21:21:14
    He is telling the many Americans who know nothing about the Constitution or l...
    JimmyIIX
    All states in government are delegated power through a constitution, Whether it is state or federal, not the other way around. Until people see that they are using a false budgetary basis to make you think you even need things like obamacare or anything else federally mandated, people will remain lost. If we change the principal operation of government. You wouldn't even need to question your health care. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFRs)<-----"Real Problem" "Real Solution" ------>(CTRF) Citizens Tax Retirement Fund. We have to change the principal of operation. With the Tax Retirement Fund all States of Government Remain, Satisfying ALL States. The CTRF would attach to all levels of Government. From County to Congress, Identifying surpluses. Those Surpluses would then start paying all states of taxes. So this is like a win win situation. Theres a lot more to it. I highly suggest checking it out. It all has to do with the Budgetary Basis vs Liquid Investments and Composite Government. We could completely fund health care, with zero issues. It might sound like a lot. But this can all be done in three years. Just by changing the principal of operation. It would also cause a wave effect of responsible government. If we change our principal of operation it would quadrupol...
    All states in government are delegated power through a constitution, Whether it is state or federal, not the other way around. Until people see that they are using a false budgetary basis to make you think you even need things like obamacare or anything else federally mandated, people will remain lost. If we change the principal operation of government. You wouldn't even need to question your health care. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFRs)<-----"Real Problem" "Real Solution" ------>(CTRF) Citizens Tax Retirement Fund. We have to change the principal of operation. With the Tax Retirement Fund all States of Government Remain, Satisfying ALL States. The CTRF would attach to all levels of Government. From County to Congress, Identifying surpluses. Those Surpluses would then start paying all states of taxes. So this is like a win win situation. Theres a lot more to it. I highly suggest checking it out. It all has to do with the Budgetary Basis vs Liquid Investments and Composite Government. We could completely fund health care, with zero issues. It might sound like a lot. But this can all be done in three years. Just by changing the principal of operation. It would also cause a wave effect of responsible government. If we change our principal of operation it would quadrupole our industries, at all levels.It doesn't necessarily have to be something mandated. It can be something funded. If you understand, if we change our principal of operation. It will change the way we deal with all of it. I think our Founding Fathers would be extremely proud of us for doing it. "USA Composite Government"investments and ownership now well exceeds 100 trillion dollars internationally. Health Care? Why is this even an issue. Also think of our Boys and Girls in uniform. We could be sending them out in impenetrable armor. I don't know why our leaders are scared of it. It would triple there power.Our Government took over the investment arena over the last 65 years. They own and control every-thing now. This is what we should do. 1. Let all the Mexicans in and close fin the boarders, Completely. These people love us, and will assimilate correctly, cultural heritage intact. 2. Restructure our Government to start working FOR US. By this I mean using the Citizens Tax Retirement Fund as the Back Bone to our economy. The retirement fund will cause will cause a discloser, only then can funds be distributed correctly. All states in power remain the same. They we're smart enough to get there the first time, they should remain there. By changing the principal of operation. It will then be OK to work For Us, not sell us out to the highest bidder. It will not only cause a wave of responsible government on it's own. But untold mass influx to our economy.With the citizens tax retirement fund. It's growth is it's success. That's how you'll know it's working. 3 years, that's all. Three fin years. Can change the course of our entire nation. You wanna talk a massive right to take stance with your leaders. Congress then will truly be driven by the people. There nuts for not already having done it. The Senate would then be seen as gods. Then you would truly see men and women of the people, for the people, and by the people. We could influx massive amounts of money into hospitals. And I do mean massive. Then you would have scientists lining the fup to cure disease. Doctors and Teachers would then truly feel their power. And take a Rightful Higher Archy. In not only influence, but in the very way you wish for your life. As I said before USA composite government investments and ownership now well exceeds 100 trillion dollars internationally. We could have every Elementary, Middle, and High School at an Institutional Level. Every Hospital run by House. Our Boys and Girls in the Military walking around in mechanized armor. All we have to do. Is change the Principal of Operation. To the Editor of the Constitution Jimmy
    (more)
  • Chris 2012/04/11 21:38:31
    He is telling the many Americans who know nothing about the Constitution or l...
    Chris
    To say that an unelected body has no right to strike down a duly passed law, especially when referring to the SCOTUS is just ridiculous. Adding to that saying that they would be judicial activists if they did shows his complete and total ignorance of how this country works, let alone the judicial system.

    First he fails to appear at a hearing in Georgia where he is the defendant and tries to have the case thrown out rather than be heard. He fails to have it thrown out, and refuses to appear, but nothing happens to him. Now he's saying that the supreme court doesn't have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law that has been passed and that the body in question has no authority/right to do that. That is the Supreme Court's only job - ruling on the constitutionality of laws and the application thereof in specific cases.

    The Supreme Court took the case, which means there is at least the possibility of something being there that requires looking into, as they could've just refused to hear the case. That would have been judicial activism in this case. But we're also ignoring an important piece of this puzzle, which is that he placed someone in this unelected body. He has a player on that team, and he still says they can't do what is their sole job, which is to rule...





    To say that an unelected body has no right to strike down a duly passed law, especially when referring to the SCOTUS is just ridiculous. Adding to that saying that they would be judicial activists if they did shows his complete and total ignorance of how this country works, let alone the judicial system.

    First he fails to appear at a hearing in Georgia where he is the defendant and tries to have the case thrown out rather than be heard. He fails to have it thrown out, and refuses to appear, but nothing happens to him. Now he's saying that the supreme court doesn't have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law that has been passed and that the body in question has no authority/right to do that. That is the Supreme Court's only job - ruling on the constitutionality of laws and the application thereof in specific cases.

    The Supreme Court took the case, which means there is at least the possibility of something being there that requires looking into, as they could've just refused to hear the case. That would have been judicial activism in this case. But we're also ignoring an important piece of this puzzle, which is that he placed someone in this unelected body. He has a player on that team, and he still says they can't do what is their sole job, which is to rule on this matter. If they find it unconstitutional, that's the decision. If they find it constitutional, I will need to find a new place to live.

    There is not one thing you are forced to buy in this country that you don't have a say in the matter. Not a single one that I can think of. Even taxes are optional if you think about how you can choose to not have a job. Auto insurance is only mandatory if you own/operate a vehicle. But to tell someone that they need to pay for a service just because they exist removes any ability to get away from it. And the wording of the law is even worse in that if you don't have a QHBP as determined by the secretary of HHS, then one will be provided to you and the cost covered as part of your taxes. But the issue is the way it is worded allows for you to be paying for health care, but if your plan doesn't meet the government requirements (regardless of whether it meets your own), you will be forced to have coverage paid for by the government, which you will have to pay for in the end. If you refuse to pay for something you didn't want/need because you already had coverage, the IRS can penalize you to whatever extent they deem appropriate.

    It's all very unbelievable to me, the way this bill is written and lawmakers don't see a problem with it. It was a failure at the state level, and it's creator has even acknowledged this, and yet the failed state level system has grown into a national system that is destined for even greater failure. At least with the state level system there wasn't an issue based on the inability for health insurance companies to provide insurance outside of the statein which they are operating. How do we create something at a national level when the companies involved can't operate in multiple states without explicitly setting up shop in any other state they wish to provide services? All it does is give a further advantage to the biggest of health insurance companies that operate in multiple states, and possibly push most/all business into those companies as part of the government's restructuring of the health care system, which does nothing to make health care more affordable, really.

    That was the point, wasn't it? Making health care more affordable? Instead all it does is force people to buy a service they either can't afford, or don't wish to have. Some wealthy folk choose to not buy health coverage and instead pay out of pocket when receiving medical care. That should be their choice, should it not; how they wish to spend their money?
    (more)
  • Yo'Adri... Chris 2012/04/12 00:32:22
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    Emperor's rule...they don't have to play by the same rules as anyone else......Pharoah's too.
    Pick your poison. He is an ineligible POTUS.....that's a given. Let him think he is KING!
  • Chris Yo'Adri... 2012/04/13 02:06:54
    Chris
    These are all things I know. I was actually surprised by a response I got regarding an explanation surrounding the ineligibility to someone. But all the same, he puts someone on this unelected body, and I'm sure he would love to make use of it, but he can't make use of it to overturn any laws if he says the body hasn't the authority to do so. It's all just building up to bite him in his royal ass.
  • Yo'Adri... Chris 2012/04/16 23:02:07
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    BINGO
  • ordman 2012/04/11 15:01:23
    He is telling the many Americans who know nothing about the Constitution or l...
    ordman
    +2
    Obama taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. After reading his statement on the Supreme Court “unelected group of people' would overturn a 'duly constituted and passed law”. If I had been a student of his I think I would want my money back.
  • God ble... ordman 2012/04/11 15:36:58
    God bless American freedom
    12 years?
  • ordman God ble... 2012/04/11 15:38:59
    ordman
    Yep.
  • God ble... ordman 2012/04/11 16:05:20
    God bless American freedom
    +1
    Enjoy these . http://blogs.suntimes.com/swe...
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008...
    There are numerous other resources as well I am sure you know.
  • Yo'Adri... ordman 2012/04/12 00:33:58 (edited)
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    I recently read.(like today)...that he was and is NOT a Professor of LAW. He was a senior "lecturer" BIG GI-NORMOUS difference....! Check it out. and quit spreading rumors that he is a big deal.! lol!
    Excerpt from Lynn Sweet's book:
    Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.
  • Yo'Adri... ordman 2012/04/16 23:02:24 (edited)
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    no no no.......incorrect.
    He was a "lecturer" not a professor of Constitutional law.
  • ordman Yo'Adri... 2012/04/17 03:34:08
    ordman
    At no time did I state that he was a Professor.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/29 23:10:10

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals