Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
This has been a hot topic all day... what with Obama being... well... Obama.
Let's stop for a moment and take in the depth and breath of the raw stupidity in that one sentence. Face it fan boys... in saying that, Obama is proving that he is the George Bush that you always thought George Bush to be... dumb as a box of rocks.President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "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," he declared.
While the article will deal with the huge error in constitutional law, I will remind everyone here that this bill passed by only the thinnest of margins, and those only by using every underhanded political tactic in the known universe, including 'deemed to have passed'
In the end:Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.
How he was ever a law professor is beyond any reasoned understanding. However, this did settle one point for me:Mr. Obama's remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the Justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law. As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama's inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.
It's clear now why Obama has so little respect for our Constitution and laws... he just plain doesn't understand them.
Review & Outlook: Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison - WSJ.com
25 views and only 1 reply...
strong arm tactics....thats all Obama knows to do.
Moderates are not republicans
If that is indeed the full quote, and he is not addressing the issue of the court taking up the part of ACA before it becomes law (which I gather is unusual) than indeed that is a pretty stupid statement.
As to the "strong majority" that is silly salesmanship.
Definitely a boner.
Without all the "stupidity" and "dumb", it's a political message up, for me, to three criticisms. First is that the law wasn't passed by any large majority - even the way to pass it was controversial by itself. Second is that a "human element" is no way to judge the constitutionality of a law - whether it's public opinion for or against the law, or all the good or bad it brings. Which actually makes the first point irrelevant but still... Third is that I don't see how the Supreme Court can be blamed - it reminds me of "blaming Congress" and more generally I'm just not fond of blame games. So yes, it may be clever or sincere but even for someone defending the health care law, I'm not sure how this could be right.
EDIT: It's part of a larger speech - I used this NYT article to read parts of it - and from what I saw the quote isn't misleading. The other parts (like the "human element") more or less confirm it.
Last edited by Vuld Edone; 04-03-2012 at 12:35 AM.
Here is the entire comment, including the President of Mexico saying how great Mexican universal health care is.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. After last week’s arguments at the Supreme Court, many experts believe that there could be a majority, a five-member majority, to strike down the individual mandate. And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who've become insured as a result of the law?
And then a President for President Calderón and Prime Minister Harper. Over the weekend, Governor Mitt Romney said that the U.S. used to promote free enterprise around the world, and he said, “Our President doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do, and I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.” My question to the both of you is whether you think that American influence has declined over the last three to four years.
And, President Obama, if you’d like to respond to that, too.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second part of your question, it’s still primary season for the Republican Party. They're going to make a decision about who their candidate will be.
It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism, and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism. But I will cut folks some slack for now because they're still trying to get their nomination.
With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.
I think it’s important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.
The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That's part of this law.
Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.
So that’s just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.
And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.
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. 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.
Q You say it's not an abstract conversation. Do you have contingency plans?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm sorry. As I said, we are confident that this will be over -- that this will be upheld. I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And, again, that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.
PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: (As interpreted.) Your question was a little local for me, and so I'm glad that the President of the United States answered it. But I would take advantage of this moment to say that after increasing the budget line for the folk insurance six-fold, and after having built more than 1,000 new clinics in the country, we're getting close to reaching universal coverage of health care -- full, free health care coverage for all people up to 18 years of age, including cancer coverage. Of the 112 million Mexicans, 106 million will have efficient, effective universal health care coverage.
So I would say that I would hope that one of the greatest economies in the world, such as the United States, could follow our example in achieving this, because it was a great thing.
Don't forget that it not only didn't pass by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" but that it was on the 3rd go-around, after the first two failed attempts. If I had to give one person the credit for passing the bill it would be Nancy Pelosi. I'm not saying it's a good thing and she'll probably go down in history as one of the worst Congressmen in history.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
The bill got past a filibuster, so at some point it was 60-40 in the Senate, that's a fairly strong majority.
The GOP is not a party of independent thinkers, so they tend to vote as a block, always toeing the party line, and mindlessly repeating the nonsense that morons lie Paul Ryan spout.
The US has had mandates since the 1790's, and the constitutionality of a mandate has never been questioned before, so it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court to find that this particular mandate has crossed some line that is found nowhere in the constitution, and leaves other mandates going back to 1790 intact.
Obama, Chicago style politics, strong arm whoever may get in your way. Obama thinks he's a dictator.
Again, that law was passed by people who actually signed the constitution, and they thought it was constitutional.
Another would be Medicare, that forces everyone to pay for health insurance that they may or may not use.
Another would be forcing everyone into the Social Security system.
There have been mandates for a long time, and congress has mandated health insurance in some form since 1790, so where in the constitution does it draw the line between this mandate and all those that came before?