Monday, April 9, 2012

Obama's Supreme Court Rebuff

SARTRE, Contributor
Activist Post

Many Americans still revere the Supreme Court. As one of the three branches of the Federal government, confidence in their conduct and authority is usually higher than Congress or the Presidency.

Yet when a real or contrived constitutional crisis develops, the screams and indignation arise and point to a convenient culprit. The current Obamacare case before this court has all the trappings of a full-blown confrontation. The reason is simple: The underlying question before the Supremes is not purely a legal matter. At stake is whether this country is actually a government under laws.

Alternatively, is it an authoritarian dictatorship nuisance by irritating lawful restraints?

Congressman Ron Paul intelligibly explains the merits of the case and the pit falls of judicial review. In an article, The Supreme Court and Obamacare, the following points are covered.
The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to "regulate" commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.
It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states’ rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

While I’m heartened that many conservatives understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of Congress, there are many federal mandates conservatives casually accept. The Medicare part D bill-- passed under a Republican President and a Republican House--mandates that you submit payroll taxes to provide prescription drugs to seniors. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by Republicans, mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly manpower producing useless reports.

Selective service laws, supported by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential conscription. I understand the distinction between these mandates and Obamacare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes mandates that are wildly beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8.
Now one might read this analysis as an argument that favors no judicial review of Obamacare, but this viewpoint misses the essential element that has allowed the tyranny of the judiciary. The Role of the Supreme Court concludes:
The depths of personal ignorance and societal denial about the nature of our own history are only superseded by the lust to destroy the unique American experiment in self-governance. The concept of Federalism, the sharing of distinct, defined and limited roles and scope for governmental authority is the basis of the U.S. Constitution.

Arbitrary, contrived and manufactured jurisprudence that relies on court ruling to establish the Supreme Court as the final and ultimate authority is un-American to its core. But that is exactly the wish of the mainstream pretenders for the rule of law. The scam of righting legislative and executive wrongs from the bench is the harbinger of a tyranny that resides in black robe Jacobins.
Remember that no one knows exactly how the Supreme Court will vote. However, it is eminently clear that little press coverage emphasizes the unethical role of Justice Elena Kagan’s refusal of recusal from the case. This slam-dunk example, where a former solicitor general and legal advisor on the Affordable Care Act in the Obama administration, from avoiding the case is stellar.

The current assessment that the initial vote among the nine jurists went against Obama is still speculation. What is clear is that the President reacted as a tin horn dictator with intimidation tactics against the court. Such conduct is not only unfitting, but also downright scary. Frightening not because it demonstrated just how ignorant the radical community organizer is, but because he is unqualified as a constitutional advocate.

Such a juridic mind needs a legal lobotomy. This indulgence by a lunatic lends weight to the assessment that Barry Soetoro is a CIA creation and a trained spook on a mission to turn the remains of the Republic into a third world junta.

When the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals demanded a legal position from Attorney General Eric Holder, that the government acknowledges the precedent of judicial review, the storm clouds thickened. Apparently, not even this despotic regime was willing to stick a rod in the eye of Lady Justice, at this time.

Fox News reports, the Obama psychic delusion.
'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,' Obama said on Monday. 'And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step'
True judicial activism stretches the Constitution into a living perverted document. The illegitimate autocrat is preparing the public for non-legal means to implement the stages of Obamacare through executive decree. Just how far will a disturbed fanatic like Obama go to circumvent a negative decision by the Supreme Court?



Be aware that until any rendering of a final ruling, a death on the court could handily keep the extortion racket in tack. Is this too farfetched to contemplate? Then watch the Wall Street Journal’s analysis of the undercurrents with the court. What if SCOTUS Strikes Down ObamaCare?

Conventional wisdom says the President must eat humble pie. Well, we will all see. If a tyrant is blocked from stacking the court, why not just ignore the decision? This is a serious question in an age of the post Republic.

Outrage over this latest example of despotism comes from THE DICTATOR-IN-CHIEF DICTATES TO SCOTUS – WILL IT BACKFIRE?
Who in the world died and made Barack Hussien Obama King of SCOTUS? Telling them they had better understand what all this means when it comes to their decision when it’s handed down in June.

There also have been rumors that Justice Kagan may have leaked the decision to the ‘Arrogant One’…we most likely will never know, but you can be sure that question was planted yesterday…and he was prepared for it and knew it was coming.

What Dear Leader did to the members of the Supreme Court during one of his State of Union speeches was ‘unprecedented’…what he did yesterday also was.

Personally, I’ve never seen anything like the audacity of this so-called man…how about you? As far as I’m concerned the only ‘activist‘ at this point of the game is the ‘Community Organizer‘, he has to go come November…he is one dangerous man to this nation through my Viewfinder in Life…how’s it lookin’ through yours?
Sentiments like this should overtake the public. However, in the entitlement society, few have the intellectual integrity or the moral courage to turn down the "something for nothing" promises of a political class that has abandoned any connection to reality.

Judicial activism is no way to novena. In spite of this inappropriate labeling of a potential decision that overturns the Obamacare mandate as hypercritical overreach is not valid. Before folks break out the champagne bottles, prepare yourself for hostile responses. The whiner in chief is hell bent on becoming an absolute ruler.

Forbes offers a significant caveat that might be used to uphold Obamacare.
Mandate advocates have had some success articulating one limiting principle in particular: that mandates are kosher when it comes to health care, because 'health care is unique.' As Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a conservative star, put it in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the mandate involves 'regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive.'
It isn’t true, of course: health insurance is about regulating how citizens pay for something that they might consume in the future, not something "they already receive." But the point is, some conservatives in the lower courts have been persuaded by this argument.

If some intellectually crippled conservatives buy into the all encompassing central government, just how can the Obama juggernaut be derailed? Since the Congress does not have the stomach to impeach the impostor, who will remove Barry Soetoro from office?

Relying on a national election to reflect the will of the people, when the process is a rigged game is foolhardy. Besides, the notion that Obama can actually win the presidential vote is even more alarming. Just what kind of country would willfully endorse a dictatorship? Maybe the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act will provide a hint of an answer.

Original article archived here

SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce.SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Contact batr@batr.org


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

2 comments:

Mack531 said...

I thought I heard OB's Press Secretary say the other day that the POTUS should know what he's talking about when it comes to chastising the Supreme Court. After all, said he, "the President used to be a professor of Conbstitutional law." Oh really? Where's the proof? OB had all his college records and transcripts "sealed" under a presidential order. OH? Why is that? Maybe because the Parents of Bill Ayres put Barack through college, as they openly described him as a "foreign student"? Gee, wouldn't that disqualify him under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause? Yeah-- let's see the proof that he was EVER a "Professor" of "Constitutional law". Curious minds want to know...

Anonymous said...

"mandates are kosher when it comes to health care, because 'health care is unique.'"

They purposely blur the line between care and insurance. Care is not being mandated, nor is it something we "already receive." Only insurance is being mandated.

People will still not receive care and/or be bankrupted by its cost when they do. The economy will still be taxed to pay for a system equivalent to filling a bucket with holes in the bottom.

It would aid the libertarian position, that care is not something society does, to include the position that endless profiteering in the name of care (that does not exist) is also something we should not do.

That would, of course, crash the entire finance economy of entitlement as effectively as crashing education or housing or the war and security business.

Post a Comment