The Party of Fraud at work in Wisconsin

By Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

 

English: Scott Walker, 45th Governor of WisconsinThe polls have not even closed in Wisconsin, yet the Party of Fraud is already out trying to steal the election, one way or another.

What are they doing?

From Wispolitics.com:

With only about four hours into the Election Day voting, members of the Milwaukee Democratic Party claim that calls are going out to voters telling them if they’d signed the recall, they didn’t need to vote today.

 Milwaukee County Dem Chair Sachin Chheda said that Walker supporters can’t get through the day without “cheating.”

 “This latest lowlife sleaze comes on the heels of countless reports from around the state of various Republican dirty tricks on behalf of Walker,” Chheda said in a statement. “For instance, reports surfaced last weekend that Walker supporters are paying homeowners to post Walker signs on their lawns.”

 A state GOP source dismissed the claims, saying it was expected from Dems who have made voter suppression claims part of their playbook.

“That’s just what they do, they’re simply setting the stage for a close election,” the source said. “The story doesn’t exist until they provide evidence.”

While on its face, this is one of the stupidest things coming from a Party that regularly manages to produce some really incredibly stupid statements; there is something here.

No, the Republicans are not trying to steal this election.  They are winning this election.  Scott Walker will pull in over 50% of the vote in this election.

The purpose of this is to create the meme, much as they did in 2000, that the election was stolen.

If Walker and the GOP win, it breaks the back of the unions and the far left.  Their only recourse is to claim the election was stolen.  Much as crazy liberals still believe George W. Bush stole the 2000 election, this is the legacy the left wants to leave here.

The most disturbing part of this story is the attitude of the left.  Elections no longer matter to them.  They cannot accept the verdict of the voters.  Either the election must be relitigated until the left wins or it must be totally tainted.

Liberals no longer accept the will of the people and move on to the next election.  This bodes very badly for the future of democracy in America.

The simple truth is Democrats no longer believe in the validity of elections.  Elections for them are simply a tool to gain power.  They are not the voice by which the people speak.

To say this is dangerous is a major understatement.

It is this type of attitude that breeds tyrannies.   We must not only defeat but also totally destroy this attitude if our Republic is to survive.

For more click here.

Dem Senator Patrick Leahy Also Threatens Supreme Court over Obamacare

By via The Western Center for Journalism

Two months ago, Barack Obama decided he could intimidate the United States Supreme Court into finding his namesake healthcare plan Constitutional. Overturning the Affordable Care Act “…would amount to an unprecedented, extraordinary step of judicial activism” said the President at a rare White House news conference, adding “…I’m 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.”

Though someone with the hyper-arrogant mentality of the Manchurian Candidate doesn’t really need a reason to direct this sort of psycho-babble at a presumptive enemy, Obama was probably responding to information provided by far left Justice Elena Kagan that the Court’s closed-door, preliminary vote on ObamaCare had not gone very well. Each Friday, the 9 justices gather for an initial vote on the cases heard during the week. And although these weekly conferences are to be strictly confidential, it’s a safe bet that Obama’s Court stoolie was on the phone with the White House minutes after its conclusion.

However, as this preemptive strike on the court was met with a nationwide flurry of criticism even from a number of his media supporters, Obama made no further reference to the prospective ruling.

But on Monday, a new county was heard from. Dedicated leftist Senator Patrick Leahy directed a 2000 word dissertation at the Court from the Senate floor, selecting as his principle target Chief Justice John Roberts. “The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not,” claimed Leahy, making clear his view that the Court has no business interfering with a Congressional assault on the Constitution. The senator advanced the 2000 Bush/Gore decision as an example of the sort of “judicial activism” that “shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court.”  He ridiculed conservative justices for their tough questioning of principle ObamaCare advocate Solicitor General Donald Verilli during oral arguments, stating “their action will not help restore American’s confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law.”

And he alternately praised and threatened the Chief Justice, literally claiming that if Roberts joined other conservatives in a 5-4 decision against ObamaCare it would “…undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

But what prompted Leahy’s sudden decision to lecture the Supreme Court as to its proper role in government? Was it a last ditch effort to intimidate justices into finding ObamaCare constitutional? Or has Kagan perhaps advised Democrats that Roberts is “wavering” a bit, leading Leahy to believe his misguided, nonsensical claims might persuade the Chief Justice to decide in favor of passage?

Since its enactment in 2010, liberals have believed the Affordable Care Act to be a sure thing to pass Constitutional muster. They were stunned when Justices took offense at the law’s contempt for individual liberty during oral arguments. After all, how could forcing Americans to purchase something they don’t want be unconstitutional if it’s for their own good!

If 5 Justices rule the ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional, the American people will hear a wailing and gnashing of teeth unequaled since the pro-Gore efforts of the Florida Supreme Court were undone after the 2000 election. We will be in for some very entertaining days.

For more information click here.

US Supreme Court: Citizens must be permitted to use handguns for self-defense: Treaties Do Not Supercede The Second Amendment!

Via Political Vel Craft

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

In June of 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment is “fully applicable to states,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote a majority opinion that provides a rare and educational glimpse into the historical meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.

An important note: One of the reasons Democrats, leftists and avowed Marxists so easily steal away our rights in this country is because “we the people” have grown largely ignorant of the rights that are ours to begin with: and many of those who know our rights only know them abstractly. For example, many citizens know that we have religious freedom yet aren’t familiar with the way the First Amendment is worded. So they don’t understand that the amendment doesn’t just recognize our God-given right to religious freedom, but actually bars the government from interfering in our religious exercises. (In other words, when the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it ties the hands of government, not the hands of the people. Yet in our ignorance we’ve allowed these things to be reversed.)

Obama’s Sneaky Treatises Can Be Blocked By The States & The U.S. Courts If They Contravene The U.S. Constitution.

 

In the same way, almost every American knows they have “the right to keep and bear arms,” although a majority may not be able to quote the Second Amendment verbatim. Thus, many don’t understand that the right to keep and bear arms is not just another right Americans possess, but a right which is actually the lynchpin holding all the other natural rights in their proper place (i.e., once the right to keep and bear arms is infringed, recognition of all other rights will depend only on the benevolence of the state).

So we need to learn as much as we can about the Second Amendment now, and we need to urge our neighbors to learn along with us. And intentionally or not, Justice Alito has provided us with such a chance with his majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago. Even a glancing look at it provides us with insights that neither academia nor the mainstream media would dare communicate to us.

For example, in his opinion Justice Alito points back to the Heller decision (2008) to highlight the fact the “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.” He also highlights how the right to keep and bear arms has long been viewed as one of the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of orderly liberty.” In just these two snippets from his decision we see that we have guns not primarily for the purpose of plinking or hunting or shooting sporting clays, but for defending our lives. Moreover, we learn that the private ownership of guns in this country is “necessary” to the system of liberty we enjoy: or to put it as the Founding Fathers did, the right to keep and bear arms is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Justice Alito also focused on the Heller decision to add a third and crucial point for Americans living in the 21st century: “[Since] ‘the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute’ in the home … we found that this right applies to handguns because they are ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to “keep” and use for protection of one’s home and family.’” Yes, you read that correctly: Justice Alito reminded us that the Supreme Court not only held that we keep and bear arms for self-defense but that a handgun is the most preferred firearm for exercising that right. “Thus,” added Justice Alito, “citizens must be permitted ‘to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.’” (I doubt that Democrats, “moderate” Republicans or the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence want you to know that the Supreme Court recognizes “handguns” as the weapon of choice for the “lawful purpose of self-defense.”)

Justice Alito bolsters these points by providing readers of the court’s opinion with a great quote from 19th-century U.S. Senator Samuel Pomeroy:

Every man … should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for … purposes [that are] vile, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.

As you see, even this cursory glance at Justice Alito’s words reminds us that the Second Amendment hedges in our right to self defense, that it is necessary to liberty and that the Supreme Court recognizes handguns as the weapon of choice for exercising this right. And what the leftists would never want any of us to know is that Senator Pomeroy’s take on the right to keep and bear arms has been mainstream from the time of our nation’s founding till now. Only through our ignorance will the left succeed in changing this.

AWR Hawkins is a conservative columnist who has written extensively on political issues for HumanEvents.com, Pajamas Media, Townhall.com, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. military history from Texas Tech University, and was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in the summer of 2010. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

Daily Caller

Sheriffs

Gun Facts

  1. Chief United States Federal Judge Rules Summary Judgement Supporting Open Carry Of Firearms In Florida!
  2. Obama Bullshitting America ~ U.N. To Dictate U.S. Military: Treatises Blocked By Sovereign States When They Contravene The U.S. Constitution.
  3. NEW WORLD ORDER ‘BULLSHIT BUBBLE’ Federal TSA Agents Under A COLOR Of Justice In Texas: Face Arrest By Citizens ~ The Constitutional Right To Resist A COLORED Duty To Submit!
  4. U.S. Sheriffs Block New World Order: Absconding American Citizen’s Property By Colluding With Obama’s Unconstitutional Executive Order For U.N. Agenda 21.

For more information click here.

Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare

By Sher Zieve via Canada Free Press

In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.

Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.”  Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly.   The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.

As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders.  The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution.   Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen.  In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”

The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012.  This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports:  “Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.

“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.”  This also brings the USA closer to becoming a “North American Union” and—also—eliminating its sovereignty—in toto.

Suffice it to say, no one in Congress has issued even the proverbial “peep” over either of these illegal “orders.”  Do the American people really want to continue to live under this blatant tyranny?

The second question is “Will the Supreme Court of the United States of America bow to Obama and give up its co-equal status to the dictator as the US Congress has already done?”  If so,  perhaps its time for We-the-People to recruit the Honduran Supreme Court who, along with their military, ousted its then President Manuel Zelaya who had become a dictator.  Oppression under the Obama syndicate becomes worse each and every day, folks.  Will we ever choose to go back to the sunshine?

“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”—Revelation 13:4

For more information click here.

Ninth Circuit Largely Upholds Arizona Voter ID Law – Yes, the Liberal Ninth Circuit!

by Breitbart News

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...

While the Obama Justice Department continues to pretend that voter ID is racially discriminatory and a violation of voting rights, courts keep on ruling against them. Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – an incredibly liberal appeals court – ruled that Arizona’s voter ID law was largely constitutional. Opponents of the law had argued that the fee to obtain an ID amounted to an impermissible “poll tax”; the Court thought otherwise.

The Court did rule, however, that Arizona cannot turn down federal voter registration forms, which simply ask applicants to check a box indicating that they are US citizens. That’s not because such provisions would be unconstitutional – it’s because those provisions violate the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the so-called Motor Voter Act). Due to the supremacy clause of the Constitution, in areas where the federal government legislates, states cannot. It is supposedly unconstitutional for Arizona to come up with another form that requires proof of citizenship.

Some liberal groups celebrated the decision as a quasi-victory. “We are elated that a strong majority of the en banc panel found Arizona’s citizenship requirement violated the NVRA,” crowd Jon Greenbaum, chief council for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “This will enable our clients to be able to register to vote and conduct voter registration drives more easily.”

The case will likely move on to the Supreme Court. But the takeaway message for federal Republicans is that the NVRA must be modified to allow for states to ask for voter ID.

Obama’s bullying pulpit – President goes out of his way to shake America’s foundations

By Robert Knight via The Washington Times

I don’t know which was more embarrassing: Barack Obama trying to bully the Supreme Court – again – or The Washington Post trying to clean up after him.

Warning the court not to rule against Obamacare, Mr. Obama said it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” of judicial activism. He chided conservatives for long complaining about judicial activism, “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Because this hasn’t ever happened at the Supreme Court, according to the man who lectured about constitutional law at the University of Chicago, court watchers must have been smoking something since 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.

Mr. Obama knows all about judicial activism. He’s fine with the court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) decision creating a “right” to abortion and overturning all abortion laws, a ruling Justice Byron White called “an exercise of raw judicial power.” Mr. Obama’s Justice Department is working to have a court overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities.

His warning to the court was a shocker, and The Washington Times and Wall Street Journal ran it on their front pages above the fold. Not so The Washington Post, which relegated this mighty clash of the federal branches to Page A5. Writer David Nakamura noted that “Obama made his argument in unusually blunt language that was rare for a sitting president.” Indeed. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who threatened to “pack the court” when it wouldn’t rubber-stamp his New Deal, didn’t dare explicitly claim the court could not overturn legislation that it found unconstitutional. Or maybe he did and Mr. Obama is channeling him.

The next day, Mr. Obama did some damage control with help from his friends. In an editorial headlined “A more judicious view,” The Post summarized Mr. Obama’s clarification: “He made clear that he was not questioning the court’s power to strike down a statute, just that exercising it in this situation, involving Congress‘ ability to regulate commerce, would be remarkable.”

Oh, that’s what he meant. The Post then gently chided Mr. Obama like a rambunctious child, advising him, “Given the power of the bully pulpit, presidents are wise to be, well, more judicious in commenting about the high court.”

Yes, sounding like a president instead of a frustrated Caesar would be better.

In 2010, Mr. Obama bullied the court in front of the nation during his State of the Union address, brazenly mischaracterizing the justices’ Citizens United ruling. He had Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius bully pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies that wouldn’t knuckle under to Obamacare. He has made a sport of bullying Israel. He is bullying the oil companies and crushing the coal industry. Recently, he sent Hillary Rodham Clinton around the world to bully nations that won’t buy the homosexual political agenda.

The other day, he even bullied journalists at his fawnathon press conference, telling them how to report. Face it, folks. America elected a bully in 2008, and he shows no sign of mellowing.

Mr. Obama has stepped on the Constitution six ways from Sunday since the day he took power. Speaking of Sunday, Mr. Obama once again made Christians suspicious of his professions of faith when he told a group of clergy on Wednesday, according to CNS News, that Easter reminds us of “all that Christ endured – not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.”

“A Son of God,” not “the Son of God.” It could have been a slip of the tongue, or perhaps it revealed more than he intended. The New Testament says God has only one Son, and it’s Jesus Christ, through Whom “all things were made” (John: 1:3).

I’d be inclined to give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt, because everyone misspeaks, but he has let slip other clues before and after gaining the bully pulpit.

On Sept. 5, 2008, on ABC television, Mr. Obama answered a question from former Clinton press secretary George Stephanopoulos with the line, “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” Mr. Stephanopoulos quickly saved Mr. Obama by noting that he meant to say his “Christian” faith.

Three times in 2010, Mr. Obama omitted the words “by their Creator” when reciting the passage about unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. In November 2010, he said the national motto was “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) instead of “In God We Trust.”

In 2009, in Cairo, Mr. Obama quoted from the “Holy Koran,” used his middle name, Hussein, and indicated that the United States and Muslim nations have the same commitment to tolerance and freedom.

Also in 2009, he told a press conference in Turkey, “Although we have a large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of values.”

WallBuilders, a Christian research group headed by David Barton, has compiled “America’s Most Biblically Hostile U.S. President,” an extensive list of Mr. Obama’s statements and actions that suggest less than fidelity toward Christianity or the Bible and a weakness for Islam. Taken as a whole, it’s devastating.

On March 6, 2007, New York Times writer Nicholas D. Kristof wrote in “Obama: Man of the World”:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ “

Here are the opening lines of that prayer, courtesy of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet!”

To a devout Christian, this “call” is not pretty, however it once sounded to a young boy being raised as a Muslim in Indonesia.

The bully pulpit, whatever it once was, has never sounded quite like this.

Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for the Washington Times.

For more information click here.

Will Obama Defy Supreme Court If ObamaCare Is Ruled Unconstitutional?

By Via Western Journalism

For 2 years, champions of ObamaCare have been careful to lay out the advantages of their federal dictatorship before handpicked audiences of organized labor and supportive media transcriptionists, at events where applause lines have been rehearsed and questions carefully pre-approved.

As a result, the Regime had little idea that anyone of importance might actually disapprove of their 3,000 page effort to separate Americans from their liberty.

So, much of the left entered the 3 day, oral argument phase of ObamaCare before the Supreme Court with the same arrogant exuberance which accompanied the passage of the law. After all, as they saw it, only the ruling of a couple of rogue jurists on the 11th Circuit had placed the left’s dream legislation in front of the 9 DC Justices anyhow. And as liberal CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin put it in 2010, challenges against the law were STILL unlikely to succeed, even before the Supremes.

But apparently, no one warned liberals like Toobin that arguing on behalf of an unprecedented assault on freedom before honest Supreme Court justices might result in a glitch or two in the left’s plans.

And that glitch has now been described as a “trainwreck” as Toobin and other ObamaCare cheerleaders mourn the reportedly disastrous Tuesday and Wednesday sessions before the Court.

For each of the conservative Justices brought up the same question in his own way: “What is the limiting factor in the law?” That is, if the Federal Government has the power to force the American people to buy insurance, what can it NOT force them to buy? What can it NOT force them to do?

The answer is NOTHING! For ObamaCare was never about health insurance. It’s about POWER. Healthcare was chosen simply as the most effective means of implementing and controlling it.

With congressional super-majorities and a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, the radical left was at last in position to affect the most audacious and comprehensive power grab in the nation’s history. And make no mistake, these people will not let it go easily.

Should the Court find the mandate unconstitutional and perhaps take down the entirety of ObamaCare, an assault will be launched against the voting justices, the legitimacy of their ruling, and the credibility of the Court itself. Obama’s media advocates will claim the usual victim classes of women and minorities to have once again been oppressed by the Right.

And Obama himself will pledge to fight the Supreme Court ruling for the good of the people always most sorely abused by the politics of the Right—blacks! Claims of genocide and racism will be repeated by the White House and Democrats in Congress. And their media “echo chamber” will make certain that the phony message is received across the nation.

In short, a correct and necessary ruling by the Supreme Court will be shamelessly utilized for the same hypocritical purpose as the death of Trayvon Martin—the motivation of black voters for the November election.

And should Obama win in November, he will continue the assault on the ruling, hoping to force the notoriously weak-kneed Republican leadership into revamping the law just enough to pass Constitutional muster. The American people will remain the slaves of deliberately thuggish legislation.

Of course, should the election go to Willard, Americans will have nothing to fear. After all, he would NEVER institute a mandatory healthcare scheme now, would he?!

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

For more information click here.

President Obama Scolded for Remarks on Healthcare Bill to Supreme Court

Kasey Jachim:

Further proof our Constitutional Scholar of a President is confused over the role of the Supreme Court and the judicial process!

Originally posted on Green Mountain Scribes:

Barack ObamaWashington, DC – President Obama was publicly scolded this week for warning the Supreme Court against overturning Obamacare.  The President said that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to rule that a law was unconstitutional.

This statement called into question the President’s

View original 223 more words

Obama Warns Supreme Court

By  LAURA MECKLER and CAROL E. LEE Via The Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama predicted Monday that the Supreme Court would uphold his signature health-care law and said that overturning it would be a prime example of judicial overreach. 

President Obama said at a Rose Garden press conference he is “confident” the Supreme Court will uphold his health-care reform law.

It was a rare instance of a president laying out his own arguments about a Supreme Court case before the justices are set to reach their decision.

In his first public comments about the case since the justices took it up last week, Mr. Obama appeared to be framing the political argument he would make should he have to face voters this fall after a loss at the high court.

“For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said at a news conference. The health-care case is a good example of just that, he said. “And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

White House officials have said they were reluctant to appear to lobby the Supreme Court, which is partly why the president didn’t speak out on the case until after it was argued before the court last week.

Rather, the president’s comments indicate how he might deal with the political fallout should he lose, framing the court as a potential villain that substitutes its judgment for that of elected legislators, and Americans who lose benefits of the law as victims. Mr. Obama ticked off a string of popular benefits that would disappear if the law is shot down, such as barring insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

Obama aides argue the election is likely to turn on the economy, but others say a negative court decision would be a severe blow to his re-election. Aggressive questions from several justices last week made it clear that the law, or at least its central tenet, could be struck down.

But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, said he was confident the high court would not take that step, partly because conservatives—who are in the majority on the court—have long argued against what some refer to as legislating from the bench. He noted that two conservative appellate judges who heard the case found the law constitutional.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), among the first to argue that the mandate to buy insurance was unconstitutional, responded, “It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist.'”

Mr. Obama said the court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns the law because it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” The vote actually was close—it passed with 60 votes in the Senate, just achieving the supermajority needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, and by 219-212 in the House.

The Supreme Court sometimes overturns laws passed by Congress, as it did in 2010, when major parts of campaign-finance restrictions were nullified in the Citizens United decision. It would be more unusual for the court to strike down an entire law with hundreds of provisions over constitutional problems with just one part.

The challengers’ case against the Obama law centers on its provision requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. Several conservative Supreme Court justices suggested at last week’s arguments that if the provision is found unconstitutional, the entire law must fall because it would be too messy for the court to untangle which provisions were connected to the insurance mandate. The Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June.

Conservatives have long complained that liberals turned to the courts for victories they couldn’t win at the ballot box, deriding judges who overturn popularly enacted laws as “judicial activists.”

In this case, the president said, it was conservatives who were betting Republican-appointed judges would nullify the legislative victory he and fellow Democrats achieved after the 2008 elections.

Challengers, including 26 states and a small-business group, argue that Congress has never required Americans to buy a product, in this case health insurance. The Obama administration says Congress properly used its authority over interstate commerce to regulate how consumers finance something they are bound to require: health care.

The two conservative appellate judges who found the law constitutional were Judge Lawrence Silberman in Washington, D.C., and Judge Jeffrey Sutton in Cincinnati. “The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems,” Judge Silberman wrote last November. An appellate court in Atlanta ruled against the insurance mandate, finding it “breathtaking in its expansive scope.”

Democrats have been trying for more than three years to make the case for the mandate to buy insurance, and Mr. Obama tried again on Monday. He said that without the mandate, it would be impossible to require insurance companies to cover everybody, including those with pre-existing conditions, at a reasonable price.

Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said Republicans would concede some provisions of the law were popular but argue the Democrats went too far by imposing the insurance mandate.

James Simon, a professor at New York Law School, said, “I can’t think of a president anticipating a court decision as Mr. Obama has done and basically arguing in favor” of his side. Mr. Simon, the author of several books on conflicts between presidents and the court, said, “Jefferson was very angry at the Marshall Court, but he [complained] in private,” as did most other presidents.

President Franklin Roosevelt “usually waited until they handed down a decision” before fulminating against the court, Mr. Simon said, such as when FDR blasted a 1935 ruling striking down portions of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Mr. Simon said he doubted the justices “are going to be influenced one way or the other” by Mr. Obama’s words.

—Jess Bravin contributed to this article.

For more click here.

Our Constitutional Scholar President Gets His Tuchus Beaten Again By SCOTUS – He is 0 for 2 so Far This Year!

By John Wiseman via Tea Party Nation (3/22/12)

It’s a bad day for a liberal President when even Justice Ginsberg rules against you.  Not only did the Obama Administration fail to convince the court’s only openly Marxist jurist serving on the bench, but they also have to live with the notion that she wrote the concurring opinion.  This case marks the second time during Administration that President Obama has had one of his policies lose in the Supreme Court.  While he is not the first President to find himself on the wrong side of the question of Constitutionality, he is still 0 for 2.  This is not the record we would have expected for a person who was marketed to the country as a, “Constitutional Scholar.”

His first smack down came in January of this year if you will remember, when a 9 to 0 decision said basically that Barack Obama, or any President does not have the authority to tell churches who they could and could not hire based on the religious leanings of the church.  In that case, a Lutheran Church ran a private school, and made the decision to hire as teachers, only those people that they felt would be good role models for passing on the Lutheran message as it pertains to all things educational.  In other words, they wanted their teachers to be Christians, and to pass those beliefs on to their students.  This is what the parents who sent their kids to a Lutheran school wanted, and this is what the owners of the school wanted.  President Obama disagreed.  In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church Vs. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the court decided that a President was not allowed to violate the First Amendment because his ultimate goal is to put an end to the practice of any religion other than Islam in America, nor for any other reason that he might have.

Yesterday’s loss, which makes him Zero for Two, came in the form of Sackett vs. The Environmental Protection Agency.  In this particular case, The EPA decided that they would prevent the Sackett’s from building a house on a piece of property that they owned.  The EPA decided that the property consisted of, or was located on wetlands in Idaho.  Here is where it gets dicey, they did not want to defend their position in court, and decided to dispense with the entire concept of due process.  They thought a good way to do this would be to tell the Sacketts that they thought it was possible that their property was inappropriate to build a house on, and therefore they should stop while the EPA took and indefinite amount of time to consider the matter.  They threatened to fine the Sacketts $35,000 per day for each day the Sacketts defied the order to stop building, and then further threatened to increase the fines to $70,000 per day if the Sacketts challenged them in court.  Nice!  So, for those of you keeping score at home, Little Barry read the Constitution and decided that the Fifth Amendment meant that he could circumvent Due Process by simply declaring that it was possible that a person was doing wrong without ever actually alleging it.  Since the allegation was never actually made, then a fair and speedy trial would never be warranted, regardless of the fact that deprivation of property was ongoing, permanent, and beyond redress.

The Supreme Court yesterday did not agree.  The decision was unanimous, not that the Sacketts could start building, but that due process must be granted.  For those who believe that this decision was limited in scope, and therefore not terribly important, I disagree.  It is a shot across the bow of a President who has been effectively creating law by executive fiat since he lost control of the Legislative Branch in January of 2011.  Things that Obama does are making their way to the Supreme Court in rapid fashion, and I do not believe that to be an accident either.  One other interesting thing to note here, he lost 9 to 0 on this one.  Putting aside any of the idiotic claims that this man is somehow a Constitutional Scholar, in his two trips to the Supreme Court so far, he has a combined score of 18 against, and 0 in favor of himself.  This does not exactly inspire confidence in his understanding of, or even his promise to uphold our founding document.  By writing a concurring opinion, Justice Ginsberg, the farthest left member of the court basically told the man child President that he has gone too far.  Removing Due Process prior to deprivation of Life, Liberty, or Property is the stuff that monarchs do to their subjects.  This is not something Presidents do to their fellow citizens.

The bad news for President Obama is that this is not going to be his last trip to the Supreme Court.  On Monday, he gets to go again, and this one will be a doozy.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

For more click here.