- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
432
560432560
What kind of constitutional law did Barack Obama teach at the University of Chicago before he joined the Illinois Legislature to vote “present?”
At a press conference Monday with the presidents of Mexico and Canada he called the court’s conservatives judicial activists, echoing liberal New York Sen. Chuck Shumer from the Sunday talk shows. Obviously that is the talking points plan by the Democrats.
Obama went one step further and questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law passed by Congress. See Marbury v. Madison, decided by the Supreme Court in 1803. The court has been deciding on the constitutionality of laws ever since. Congress is not some infallible font of wisdom and neither is the president, whether his name is Obama or anyone else.
Duh! Deciding the constitutionality of laws is the Supreme Court’s only job. One would think that would be explained in Constitutional Law 101 at law schools, if not something talked about in the first few weeks of school. Obama, who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, ought to know better. If not, then he is devaluing the Harvard law degree.
Instead, he is attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court much as he did two years ago at the State of the Union Address, warning them not to take “an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” “Strong” was 219-212 vote in the House and a 1 vote margin in the Senate, with no Republicans voting for it. Strong or weak is irrelevant if the law is unconstitutional. As Chief Justice John C. Marshall wrote in 1803, “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
Obama is sounding less like a president and more like the whiner in chief.
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
James E.April 04, 2012 - 10:37 am
Mr. Editor, it's not whiny, it's the bully pulpit. I would like to see it used more often. And I think it will be in the months leading up to November. A counter to Fox News. And long overdue.
James E.April 04, 2012 - 11:23 am
ADDED: My prediction is that the Court will uphold the ACA by 6 to 3, with Roberts and Kennedy voting in favor of the Act. Why you ask? First, the ACA is not socialism, it's free market giving all that mandate business to health insurance companies. Republicans like all that business, while at the same time bad mouthing President Obama for giving them the business. Secondly, Chief Justice Roberts is concerned that the Court is open to arguments that it has become a rubber stamp court for Republican interests: Bush in 2000, Citizens United, and now the ACA. He wants to break that string so the Court can maintain its "judicial impartial reputation." Six to three, my estimate.
HLApril 04, 2012 - 5:20 pm
Mr. Editor, You will have to excuse James E Longhofer, he lacks the Spirit of Truth. Mr. Longhofer is perfectly satisfied with one of the most evil leaders of the USA we have ever seen. President Barack Hussein Obama has continued to dismantle America one institution at a time. From unelected Czars, to the seizure of GM, Banks, and student loan program to the non action of the SEC and DOJ, the list grows daily. Add to that the war on the "rich" as he takes in tens of millions from the same, and the pending race war instigated by the usual participates including the President, Mr Longhofer is oblivious to that. Mr Longhofer has no problem supporting a Democrat Party the kills the unborn children of the future even in the third trimester. Has Mr. Longhofer ever held a baby that was born premature at 5 months gestation. I have. She fit between my tiny hands cupped with care. Mr Longhofer calls himself a Christian, I would disagree. It has become apparent that Mr James E Longhofers Ideology of Liberalism trumps everything including the truth. The B@*#h is back, deal with it.
James E.April 04, 2012 - 5:50 pm
Harriet, Harriet, Harriet. Take some deep breaths, be calm and think nice thoughts. Gently stroke your earlobe. Given we have never discussed the matter, I am surprised you know my position on abortion. Every abortion kills a developing human being -- a human being that has unknown potential and that is a loss to all of us. It is a sad thing. Yet, it seems to me that woman have the right to their own bodies. And if Roe v. Wade were overturned, women would continue to have abortions, albeit dangerous ones. So, I'm conflicted, but lean towards women having the right to rule their own bodies and while I say that, it's still sad. As for President Obama being the Devil, I think not. Perhaps a politician, but not the Devil. Those unelected czars, just like the ones in the administrations of past Republican presidents? Seizure of the automobile companies resulted in the saving of those companies along with all their parts suppliers. Well done, Mr. President. War on the rich, about darn time. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
HLApril 04, 2012 - 5:59 pm
Hello James, Did you get permission to respond to me, inquiring minds would like to know? My points still stand, despite your diversion also known as a shiny penny. I will not give up however.
Sly GirlApril 05, 2012 - 12:14 am
Ah, Barak Obama...also known by his actions as "First Liar-In-Chief", First Blamer-In-Chief", "First Super-Unqualified-In-Chief", "First Hater-In-Chief", and "First Needs-To-Go-In-Chief."
DeannaApril 05, 2012 - 10:06 am
HL-Good for you. When I read his missives I giggled. My Other Half asked what's so funny?" When I read Longhofer's comments to him, he started laughing and laughing and laughing. So I suggest that perhaps rather than getting aggravated take his comments as what they are-pure comedy and laugh. Mr.Longhofer is a propagandist. His job is to disseminate falsehoods. It is what he does.
James E.April 05, 2012 - 11:09 am
Oh, the ladies give me way too much credit. Not a propagandist, just a Democrat, apparently a rare breed in El Dorado County. Propagandist: George W. Bush saying, "We've got to catapult the propaganda." Deanna, tell me about your husband. What is his claim to fame the justifies his laughter? Highly educated, been around the world a couple of times, known for his political expertise, extremely handsome, loves kittens and puppies, what?
Dink LaneApril 05, 2012 - 2:25 pm
Grammar Lesson!............................ "Unprecedented" =/= challenge to Judicial Branch's authority ........................ Obama said --> Unprecedented ..... . . . . What I want to know: Why is it OK for the PAPER + EDITORS to use the same "OBAMA" language when you question The Supreme Court.................................. When it comes to Roe v. Wade.......but NOT now??????
DeannaApril 05, 2012 - 4:59 pm
Mr. Longhofer,anytime a propagandist/Democrat uses flat out lies and spin to change the narrative,the result is laughable.And unless your friend (guessing Kennedy) on the Supreme Court has given you inside information, no one knows what the result will be.
James E.April 05, 2012 - 5:22 pm
Deanna, give me some examples of my lies. And note above I said my estimate was 6/3. Look up the word estimate and see if that indicates certainty. While I have exchanged correspondence with Justice Kennedy over the years (we first met in the second grade), you really don't think he would reveal the inside business of the court? OK, now that we have taken care of that, tell me about your husband so I can respect/reject his laughter.
DeannaApril 05, 2012 - 7:25 pm
Mr.Longhofer,saying that Obamacare/ACA is not socialism is a lie. The government demanding an individual purchase an unwanted product-socialism.The government designing said product-socialism.The government determining when and how said product can be used-socialism. Trying to associate Republicans with this law is spin if not outright lying. No Republican was invovled in the writing of this law. Remenber "I won." by Obama. And not one, not one Republican voted for it. As far as Chief Justice Roberts being concerned about being considered a rubber stamp for Republicans, I can not find one statement made, one memo leaked that that is a concern of his. Your statement has no basis in fact.
James E.April 06, 2012 - 10:29 am
Deanna, you regurgitate Tea/Republican talking points. If the ACA is socialism, then Medicare is socialism. Don't know your age, but when you and your husband are eligible are you going to refuse Medicare? And how many 65 year old Tea/Republicians have refused Medicare? See, the proof is in the pudding, Tea/Republicians love Medicare socialism. The ACA is a give away to the insurance companies. They will love all those premiums. You also seem to be confused about spin and lying. Spin is lying -- if you want to see spin raised to a high art tune in Fox News. Not one word about your husband? You opened the door, now tell us about his bona fides. Do we take your silence to mean he has none? And, in your reply, please spare me the specious argument that Medicare is going broke. Public policy will fund it as necessary. As it is obvious you will not reply as to your husband lack of bona fides, we are finished here.
James E.April 07, 2012 - 9:22 am
Yes, we are finished here.