Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (68978)	4/3/2012 11:36:49 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

To Save ObamaCare, Obama Does Full Court Press Checks And Balances: A president with no respect for the Constitution warns of judicial activism by a Supreme Court reviewing his landmark legislation's constitutionality. It would be unconstitutional to let it stand. Someone will have to remind President Obama the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, part of a system of checks and balances designed to rein in precisely the kind of runaway government exhibited by his administration. Our community-organizer-in-chief has a different opinion. "Ultimately, I am 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 at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico. Is this the same Congress Obama has pledged to go around through executive orders and regulations? This is precisely what the Supreme Court is designed to do — determine the constitutionality of laws passed by democratically elected legislatures and Congress. Surely the constitutional law professor has heard of Marbury v. Madison, the 1802 case that formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional." Such an action is not unprecedented. The court has invalidated at least two laws for violating the Commerce Clause in the last 20 years, and ObamaCare, with its unprecedented invocation of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty, would qualify. By one estimate, the Supreme Court has struck down 53 laws between 1981 and 2005 alone. The president speaks of a law passed by a "democratically elected Congress" yet it was a bill no one had read and which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass to find out what was in it. The fact is, most of the rules and regulations are written by unelected bureaucrats authorized by a bill that refers not to "we the people" but to "the secretary shall determine." The law's Independent Payment Advisory Board, with its power to decide what health care will be available and who gets it, is just one example of how the future of the American people will be determined not by their representatives but by unelected bureaucrats. In January, the president showed his respect for law and the Constitution when he illegally appointed Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, along with three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, all without Senate approval as the Constitution requires. The president has no problem with ObamaCare's assault on the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion by mandating with a regulation no one voted on that religious institutions include contraceptive coverage even if it violates religious consciences. To say the bill passed "a strong majority" of a democratically elected Congress is an overstatement. The bill passed the House with a vote of 219-212, a majority of seven, with 34 Democrats defecting. It passed in the Senate through a series of bribes such as the "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase," and after the legislative gimmick of attaching it as an amendment to a budget reconciliation measure to avoid a filibuster. This isn't the first time President Obama has lectured the Supreme Court. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, he shamefully scolded the justices on national television for "having reversed a century of law" in a ruling in which the court was protecting the freedom of political speech enshrined more than two centuries ago in the First Amendment. It will be poetic justice if in answering the administration's assertions on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the court will echo Justice Samuel Alito's reply that night: "Not true."