BARACK OBAMA, CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORAMUS
|
|
|||||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
75% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
25% | ||
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:
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...
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?
Pick your poison. He is an ineligible POTUS.....that's a given. Let him think he is KING!
http://www.factcheck.org/2008...
There are numerous other resources as well I am sure you know.
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.
He was a "lecturer" not a professor of Constitutional law.