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.

Obama’s Legal Humiliation

By via Western Journalism

Part 2 of: Barack Obama Foreign Student – American Media Threatened into Silence

Today, there is no American news outlet factually covering the illegal actions of the sitting President of the United States in context. Nor is there one consistently exposing the laws his administration has flagrantly broken, though this corruption now demonstrably permeates every level of the federal system.

Attorneys General Tom Horne, Arizona; Pam Bondi, Florida; Sam Olens, Georgia; Bill Schuette, Michigan; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma; Marty Jackley, South Dakota; Alan Wilson, South Carolina; Greg Abbott, Texas; and Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia produced a joint memo on March 5th, 2012 detailing 21 blatant violations of law committed by the Obama administration.

By now it is unsurprising the media has by and large ignored this announcement, although AG Cuccinelli did appear in an extended segment with CSPAN (the relevant segment can be found here) on March 18th.

Fortunately, The Tea Party Tribune published the Attorney’s General memo, “A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law” in full the same day it was released. It is nothing short of a flashing legal headline story, yet cannot be found at the Washington Post or the New York Times.

“Whether it is through the EPA, NLRB, Office of Surface Mining, FCC or other entities, the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.” – A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

An abbreviated list of broken laws includes:

  • PPACA (Obamacare): Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet
  • EPA 1: GHG (Green House Gas) lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years
  • DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice.

- A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

14 more violations of law are listed in the AGs’ memo. At one time or another, many of these violations have made the news, yet the full list is never presented to the public. When compiled, it is apparent even at a glance that the federal government as led by Barack Obama has no respect for the law. Clearly, the Obama government is acting as it deems fit. Much as a monarchy would. As if the States did not exist. As if the Constitution of the United States did not apply.

Indeed, when it comes to Obama and his government, the Constitution is a barrier to be removed. As Obama stated in a 2001 interview with NPR, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”  Undeniably, the Constitution limits government negatively; it states what the government cannot do. From the point of view of someone attempting to expand government powers beyond that which the Constitution limits it to, it is extraordinarily (and negatively) limiting. It was designed that way. It is the keystone, the cornerstone, the foundation of a free people; one freed and protected from government tyranny.

The M-1/A-2 tank in the room

If more evidence were needed to delineate the obvious disrespect coming from the Oval Office for the Law, on Monday, April 2nd 2012, President Barack Obama attempted to erase 200 years of legal history, stating in a press conference with world leaders that the law codified in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137) 1803 is not valid:

“Ultimately, 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.” – Barack Obama 4-5-2012

Hundreds of bills have passed out of Congress and been found unconstitutional, overturned by the Supreme Court, since Marbury V. Madison established in 1803 the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review.

The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of law, determining the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress for over two hundred years. There is no article or section in the Constitution which specifically bestows this power within the Court. Instead, Marbury was the court’s interpretation of the Constitution; furthermore, the legal precedent it set in that decision still stands as good law today.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has attempted to re-write history to his liking. The difference here lay in the fact that the media is in a feeding frenzy over this one.

The day following this massive falsehood, April 2nd, Eric Holder was ordered to address Obama’s statements by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, forcing the administration to publicly acknowledge the law established in Marbury.

Attorney General Eric Holder stated in the department’s court ordered response: “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.” Even the Attorney General of the United States is hanging Obama out to dry on this issue.

Marbury V. Madison is not just an elephant in the room; it’s more like M-1/A-2 tank running flat out, but not for the reasons most immediately apparent. What is missing from this conversation, so ravenously devoured by the press, is this: Marbury was decided in 1803, it’s has been cited hundreds of times. It has never been overturned. The Attorney General of the United States affirms that it is good law. There is absolutely no question it is binding law, so commonplace it wasn’t even a discussion piece outside first year law school until the president tried to undo it in a press conference.

So far, so good, but what’s missing here?

If Marbury has never been overturned and is binding law with decades of citable history behind it, what makes it different from a case decided in 1875 which has also never been overturned and has been cited to for decades?

Nothing. They are both still law.

Minor V. Happersett in 1875 decided that Ms. Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. While originally a Women’s Suffrage (voting) case, the Court in Minor interpreted the Constitution, determining that citizenship itself did not give right to vote, unequivocally stating in the final paragraph of the decision: “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one”Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162).

Constitutional Amendments against discrimination preventing a person from voting based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th)., are taken for granted as being a constitutional rights to vote; yet in reality, there is no constitutionally protected “right” to vote (there are amendments against discrimination.)

To re-state this immeasurably important distinction, there is nothing in the Constitution which gives Americans the right to vote; instead, the Constitution eliminates circumstances such as gender and race from preventing voting. This is a legal distinction perhaps only a lawyer can properly love, yet the fact remains that the difference between the two is as great as the difference between lead and gold.

This is why the Minor Case has never been overturned; its conclusion is a statement of fact. Because it has never been overturned, the basic definitions of citizenship made in Minor still apply today because they are the independent grounds upon which the court made its decision.

To use a metaphor, ‘The light bulb turned on because there is electricity. Electricity is the flow of electrons in a current which heats a wire making a light bulb glow.’ The definition of electricity is the independent ground upon which we can say the light bulb turned on.

This is not an issue of dictionary semantics or the meaning of words changing over time. The Minor court defined natural born citizenship as part of its independent ground for deciding the case, making it a part of the “holding” – for deciding the case as it did. “Citizenship does not give the right to vote. Citizens are…” These definitions were codified in law which, like those made in Marbury V. Madison, makes them inviolate.

The court in 1875 chose to define through its specific wording what natural born citizens were and still are today, just as in 1803 it decided the right of judicial review lay with the Supreme Court and nowhere else.

Illegal governments do illegal things

Why is the Minor case relevant in 2012 as it applies to the federal government breaking laws left and right?

The answer is not only insidiously dangerous, but terribly simple. The man at the head of that government is there illegally. How can this be? Because Minor V. Happersett is still law, it has not been overturned any more than Marbury V. Madison has.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162)

The Court did not need to decide if Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was obviously a natural born citizen, born in the United States to two parents who were its citizens. The Minor case instructs clearly and concisely that those not born to two citizen parents will have doubts cast on their citizenship status, which in some circumstances, such as qualification under Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution, will demand answers.

Simple logic tells us that where there is doubt about something, proofs must be offered to confirm its status. The proof offered by Barack Obama of his Natural Born Citizenship and placed by him on the White House website has been found to be a “probable forgery” by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, in a legitimate law enforcement action undertaken at the written insistence of the Citizens of Maricopa County and presented to them in person on March 31, 2012. The Sheriff is a five time, popularly elected law enforcement official who has served 20 years in that office.

This is the M-1/A-2 tank roaring through the room. If Marbury V. Madison is still law, so too is Minor V. Happersett.

If Barack Obama was completely wrong to state: “…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…”, then he is equally incorrect to claim Natural Born Citizenship because he was not “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” He has offered no legitimate proof that he could be a citizen; his father was a British subject of Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States. What proof Obama has offered has been proven a forgery by law enforcement officials.

The simplest of conclusions is unavoidable: Illegal governments do illegal things. Expect nothing less.

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, English Pravda, Tea Party Tribune, Patriot Action Network, and The Western Center for Journalism.

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.

Holder Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, Steps Up Voter Fraud Efforts

By  via Western Journalism  March 16, 2012

On Monday, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice barred the proposed Texas voter ID law from taking effect. Writing for the DOJ, Assistant Attorney General Robert Perez claimed that the law requiring all Texas voters to present a state issued photo ID at the polls would “adversely affect Hispanic voters” because they are “more than twice as likely not to have valid photo identification than non-Hispanic registered voters.”

It is hardly surprising that Democrats hold nationwide antipathy for voter ID laws. After all, as it is the left which benefits from criminal misadventure at the polls, anything which tends to interfere with turning the votes of the dead, the illegal, and the non-existent into a Democrat victory must be fought with every resource of the Obama Administration.

The proposed Texas law and a similar South Carolina statute rejected by the DOJ last year were both victims of Eric Holder’s deliberately disingenuous use of the 1973 Voting Rights Act, which requires states or areas with “a history of voting discrimination” to have proposed changes to their voting laws “pre-approved” by the federal government.

The fact is, the Obama Regime used Section 5 of the VRA to mask its real goal of enabling voter fraud by claiming the proposed legislation of both states to be in violation of the Act’s aim of ensuring fair and honest voting standards.

And just as it had in the case of South Carolina, the DOJ barred the revision to the Texas law by completely ignoring a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled the newly enacted State of Indiana statute requiring all who come to the polls to present a state issued, picture ID as legal and constitutional.

Described as one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, the Indiana statute had been opposed by a typical assortment of left-wing agencies which claimed its enactment would unfairly burden the usual victim classes of the poor, minorities, the aged and infirm.

Yet in the Court’s 6-3 ruling on the case Crawford v Marion County Election Board, even far left Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that the requirement that voters obtain picture ID did not represent an unfair or undue burden.

Writing a concurring opinion on the Court’s judgment, Antonin Scalia said “the Fourteenth Amendment does not regard neutral laws as invidious, even when their burdens purportedly fall disproportionately on a protected class.”  That is, as the law applies uniformly to all citizens, the fact that it might burden some more than others is not a basis for discarding it.

The Supreme Court clearly ruled that “…without proof of discriminatory intent, a generally applicable law with disparate impact is not unconstitutional.”

Free voter ID’s made available by the state to any American citizen who wishes one does not constitute a basis for a claim of disenfranchisement of Hispanics. But Barack Obama’s Department of Justice did not look to the Court for guidance as it is the “disenfranchisement” of illegals and others who should not be voting that actually BOTHERS Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice in the first place!

From Obamacare to immigration law and voter ID laws, the Obama Regime is interested only in the exercise of power and control over the American public. By enabling millions of illegals to vote for Democrats, the left hopes to secure the legislative and executive authority it needs to turn a Constitutional republic into a Marxist dictatorship. Should Obama and his handlers succeed, voter ID laws would become moot as elections themselves will be a distant memory.

Read more here

.

Morning Bell: A Troubling Trend in the Courts

By Ericka Andersen via The Foundry

Should judges act based upon reasoned legal arguments, or based upon their personal feelings and media coverage?  A controversial recent “statement” made by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in a case that was the legal equivalent of a slam dunk raises serious questions about what really guides some judges.

In the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the Court was asked to address a Montana Supreme Court opinion upholding a Montana ban on independent expenditures by corporations. This should be an easy case—after all, the Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that bans on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment.

But Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who dissented from Citizens United, want another crack at Citizens United.  They issued a separate “statement” advocating that the Court take the “opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

As Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky wrote:

What evidence is there before Justices Ginsburg/Breyer that the allegiance of candidates is being bought?  The misinformed editorial pages of The New York Times?  The propaganda spewed out about Citizens United by MSNBC?

von Spakovsky concludes regrettably that Ginsburg and Breyer are “making decisions based on their personal ideologies and political opinions” instead of relying on “actual evidence submitted in the cases before them.”

Personal preferences and subjective editorials clearly shouldn’t form the basis for judicial decisions.  But what should guide their decisions, and how much power should the Supreme Court exercise? The Founders asserted that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government. As of late, however, the courts are looking pretty strong, particularly compared to a Congress that refuses to take their duty to interpret the Constitution seriously.

In the latest “Understanding America: What is the Proper Role of the Courts?,” Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Robert Alt gives an example of how a “weaker” Congress leads to a “stronger” judiciary involving the very law at issue in Citizens United:

When Congress was considering the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—popularly known as McCain-Feingold—which imposed numerous restrictions on election-related speech, its Members delivered speeches acknowledging that provisions of the Act were likely unconstitutional. That should have ended the debate.

But some Members surprisingly went on to state that questions of constitutionality were for the Supreme Court, not Congress, to decide, and that Congress should pass the legislation because it was too important not to enact. This was a flagrant abdication of Congress’s role in determining the constitutionality of legislation.

In short, Members of Congress failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution and tossed that responsibility to the Supreme Court — a poor way to run a constitutional government. The Court’s power here is only a snapshot of increasingly customary and destructive tendencies toward judicial activism.

The effects of liberal judicial activism are regrettably widespread.  Alt writes:

The federal courts have awarded the federal government power to regulate matters well beyond its constitutional authority. The courts themselves have taken over school systems and prisons for decades at a time, created new rights found nowhere in the Constitution, whittled away at constitutional rights (like property rights) that they apparently dislike, and asserted that they have the authority to decide questions concerning how to conduct the War on Terror that are constitutionally reserved to Congress and the President.

Americans should be concerned about the increasingly powerful judicial branch. With politicized appointments and repeated judicial failures to adhere to the Constitution as it is written, the public must demand action from the political branches.  Specifically, Americans must insist that the President and Congress do their duty by passing and signing only laws which are consistent with the Constitution’s original public meaning — and that they appoint and confirm only judges who check their personal agendas at the door.

H/T News You May Have Missed