The Supreme Court May Bring the Constitutional Scholar Down
This started as a reply to polaris93 in http://polaris93.livejournal.com/3425074.html?view=3650354#t3650354 .
Important news from Karl Gebhard in Before It's News, Friday October 14th 2011, "A Smack Down Of Barack Obama By the U.S. Supreme Court May Be Inevitable," http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1232/579/A_Smack_Down_Of_Barack_Obama_By_The_U.S._Supreme_Court_May_Be_Inevitable.html :
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
I don't know why the ruling should have surprised "Constitutional scholar" Barack Husein Obama, as if the First Amendment protects anything it protects the right to engage in explicitly political speech regarding the choice of candidate in an election. But then, I learned the Constitution in a local college of no great repute: I didn't get to go to Harvard Law School, where they no doubt study an extra-special sparkly minty-fresh version of the Constitution, which one would interpret in a manner quite different from that which one would imagine by a mere plebian reading of what the document says, perhaps enhanced by a study of what the Founders said they meant.
Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
When I went to school my teachers told me of the "checks and balances" between the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. They made the point that, as designed by the Founders and as it's functioned historically, the rule of thumb is that two branches can always override the third, but one branch by itself can never override the other two. To take the most directly-relevant instance, a President with the Congress on his side can override the Supreme Court, because between them they can set the number of judges and the limits of their power of review; but neither branch could do this alone. The classic case of this is FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930's, done with the support of a compliant Congress, which intimidated the Court into letting some of the unconstitutional (a liberal would say "progressive") elements of the New Deal through (FDR didn't, however, have enough unconditional support from Congress to get everything he wanted: "checks and balances" in operation in both directions there).
Again, one would imagine that this would have warned any President who knew anything of American Constitutional history away from some of Barack Obama's excesses. But then, again, I was never a "Constitutional scholar" at an Ivy League school, so I'm sure that all sorts of factors -- perhaps the inability to see past his own upturned nose -- may have contributed to Obama's curious decision to publicly challenge the Court after his party lost control of the Senate. Then again, some of the laundry-list of issues on the Court's docket pre-dated the Democrats' loss of control of the Congress: Obama may have simply assumed that he had and would KEEP enough power to never have to face responsibility for his offenses against our liberties. Thank you again, Tea Parties.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
So, what are these issues?
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
This highlights a Constitutional principle which American collectivists dearly wish we would all forget: namely that the US Constitution is primarily binding on the Federal Government; only secondarily on states and municipalities (insofar as it sets the rules under which the Federal Government may properly regulate them), and usually only distantly on individuals (because they may be regulated by the Federal, State or local governments (the exception to this of course being Federal officials, such as certain Harvard Law School Constitutional scholars). I've been fairly certain that the courts would kill much of ObamaCare for this and other reasons, and I'm glad to see that the U.S. Supreme Court may be taking up this issue.
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.
This may or may not go somewhere, because unless the fraud is material to the issue of Obama's native-citizen status, the Court will probably not bother with it. Still, Obama's extreme reluctance to release information regarding his pre-Presidential past is strange, and it makes me wonder just what he's hiding. One possibility is that his rather cavalier attitude towards legality long predates his career as a politician, and a close examination of his past would reveal a young man constantly getting into trouble and constantly using connections and charisma to get out of it. Another is that his college and university records would show that he grasps Constitutional issues just about as well as his current behavior would imply: that, far from being a brilliant demigod, he was more of a dunce.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
This isn't brought up enough, probably because Obama has the unquestioning support of much of the mainstream media (and how angry he's gotten at Fox for failing to toe the party line!), but the flood of "stimulus" spending has resulted in all the corruption one might imagine from a reading of history (any country's history). Not only has Obama used the promise of or threat of withdrawal of federal funding to various companies to high-handedly dictate to their boards (he doesn't seem to grasp that he is "President of the United States," and not Chairman of the Board of various corporations); there appears to have been vast quantities of classic Gilded Age corruption, in the form of sweetheart grants and loans, with the accompanying kickbacks.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama's DOJ suing the state of Arizona .. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
The suit is especially strange because the Federal Government is essentially suing a State Government for attempting to enforce a Federal law which the Federal Government is refusing to enforce. This is almost certainly unconstitutional, since the Executive Branch does not have the power to nullify laws: it may refuse to enforce them itself based upon an appraisal of its practical ability to do so, but it may not also prevent other levels of government from enforcing them. This was an attempt by Obama to arrogate legislative power to the Executive Branch, and I very much think it's going down.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers ...
This is definitely a career-killer for Holder, and -- if it's established that Holder acted with Obama's approval -- possibly for Obama himself. It represents a direct violation of the Fifteenth Amendment (Article 1: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"), and if the Obama Administration refuses to enforce this when blacks are the victimizers or whites the victims, they are violating both the letter and spirit of the Amendment (and, amusingly, in exactly the same way that the Southern Democrats did for a century, simply with the races reversed).
Obama and Holder might argue that they chose not to pursue the case owing to limited resources, but the fact is that the Department of Justice had this case all but won at the point when Holder inexplicably quashed it. Holder's only plausible reasons for such a decision amount either to a political decision to permit poll intimidation when directed against Republicans, or when directed against whites -- either of which would be grossly unconstitional.
My guess here is that Holder will take the fall for Obama -- Holder will claim that this was all his idea, rather than Obama's -- and Obama just barely escape impeachment. But even that would be bad news for a President facing re-election with terrible poll numbers. As I predicted, the attempt by the New Black Panthers to intimidate white and Republican voters will boomerang, energizing a defiant response from those voters, and helping to swell their numbers at the polls to a degree far outweighing whatever small-scale and local effects they might have gained by twirling those clubs.
So it looks as if the "Constitutional scholar" is going down -- possibly by impeachment, more likely by simply losing the 2012 elections. If I were Barack Husein Obama, I would seriously consider following the example of Lyndon Baines Johnson, and choosing a one-term Presidency, instead of either losing the election or winning it only to be forced out of office by impeachment or the threat thereof.
But then what do I know? I'm not a "Constitutional scholar."
Important news from Karl Gebhard in Before It's News, Friday October 14th 2011, "A Smack Down Of Barack Obama By the U.S. Supreme Court May Be Inevitable," http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1232/579/A_Smack_Down_Of_Barack_Obama_By_The_U.S._Supreme_Court_May_Be_Inevitable.html :
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
I don't know why the ruling should have surprised "Constitutional scholar" Barack Husein Obama, as if the First Amendment protects anything it protects the right to engage in explicitly political speech regarding the choice of candidate in an election. But then, I learned the Constitution in a local college of no great repute: I didn't get to go to Harvard Law School, where they no doubt study an extra-special sparkly minty-fresh version of the Constitution, which one would interpret in a manner quite different from that which one would imagine by a mere plebian reading of what the document says, perhaps enhanced by a study of what the Founders said they meant.
Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
When I went to school my teachers told me of the "checks and balances" between the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. They made the point that, as designed by the Founders and as it's functioned historically, the rule of thumb is that two branches can always override the third, but one branch by itself can never override the other two. To take the most directly-relevant instance, a President with the Congress on his side can override the Supreme Court, because between them they can set the number of judges and the limits of their power of review; but neither branch could do this alone. The classic case of this is FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930's, done with the support of a compliant Congress, which intimidated the Court into letting some of the unconstitutional (a liberal would say "progressive") elements of the New Deal through (FDR didn't, however, have enough unconditional support from Congress to get everything he wanted: "checks and balances" in operation in both directions there).
Again, one would imagine that this would have warned any President who knew anything of American Constitutional history away from some of Barack Obama's excesses. But then, again, I was never a "Constitutional scholar" at an Ivy League school, so I'm sure that all sorts of factors -- perhaps the inability to see past his own upturned nose -- may have contributed to Obama's curious decision to publicly challenge the Court after his party lost control of the Senate. Then again, some of the laundry-list of issues on the Court's docket pre-dated the Democrats' loss of control of the Congress: Obama may have simply assumed that he had and would KEEP enough power to never have to face responsibility for his offenses against our liberties. Thank you again, Tea Parties.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
So, what are these issues?
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
This highlights a Constitutional principle which American collectivists dearly wish we would all forget: namely that the US Constitution is primarily binding on the Federal Government; only secondarily on states and municipalities (insofar as it sets the rules under which the Federal Government may properly regulate them), and usually only distantly on individuals (because they may be regulated by the Federal, State or local governments (the exception to this of course being Federal officials, such as certain Harvard Law School Constitutional scholars). I've been fairly certain that the courts would kill much of ObamaCare for this and other reasons, and I'm glad to see that the U.S. Supreme Court may be taking up this issue.
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.
This may or may not go somewhere, because unless the fraud is material to the issue of Obama's native-citizen status, the Court will probably not bother with it. Still, Obama's extreme reluctance to release information regarding his pre-Presidential past is strange, and it makes me wonder just what he's hiding. One possibility is that his rather cavalier attitude towards legality long predates his career as a politician, and a close examination of his past would reveal a young man constantly getting into trouble and constantly using connections and charisma to get out of it. Another is that his college and university records would show that he grasps Constitutional issues just about as well as his current behavior would imply: that, far from being a brilliant demigod, he was more of a dunce.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
This isn't brought up enough, probably because Obama has the unquestioning support of much of the mainstream media (and how angry he's gotten at Fox for failing to toe the party line!), but the flood of "stimulus" spending has resulted in all the corruption one might imagine from a reading of history (any country's history). Not only has Obama used the promise of or threat of withdrawal of federal funding to various companies to high-handedly dictate to their boards (he doesn't seem to grasp that he is "President of the United States," and not Chairman of the Board of various corporations); there appears to have been vast quantities of classic Gilded Age corruption, in the form of sweetheart grants and loans, with the accompanying kickbacks.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama's DOJ suing the state of Arizona .. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
The suit is especially strange because the Federal Government is essentially suing a State Government for attempting to enforce a Federal law which the Federal Government is refusing to enforce. This is almost certainly unconstitutional, since the Executive Branch does not have the power to nullify laws: it may refuse to enforce them itself based upon an appraisal of its practical ability to do so, but it may not also prevent other levels of government from enforcing them. This was an attempt by Obama to arrogate legislative power to the Executive Branch, and I very much think it's going down.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers ...
This is definitely a career-killer for Holder, and -- if it's established that Holder acted with Obama's approval -- possibly for Obama himself. It represents a direct violation of the Fifteenth Amendment (Article 1: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"), and if the Obama Administration refuses to enforce this when blacks are the victimizers or whites the victims, they are violating both the letter and spirit of the Amendment (and, amusingly, in exactly the same way that the Southern Democrats did for a century, simply with the races reversed).
Obama and Holder might argue that they chose not to pursue the case owing to limited resources, but the fact is that the Department of Justice had this case all but won at the point when Holder inexplicably quashed it. Holder's only plausible reasons for such a decision amount either to a political decision to permit poll intimidation when directed against Republicans, or when directed against whites -- either of which would be grossly unconstitional.
My guess here is that Holder will take the fall for Obama -- Holder will claim that this was all his idea, rather than Obama's -- and Obama just barely escape impeachment. But even that would be bad news for a President facing re-election with terrible poll numbers. As I predicted, the attempt by the New Black Panthers to intimidate white and Republican voters will boomerang, energizing a defiant response from those voters, and helping to swell their numbers at the polls to a degree far outweighing whatever small-scale and local effects they might have gained by twirling those clubs.
So it looks as if the "Constitutional scholar" is going down -- possibly by impeachment, more likely by simply losing the 2012 elections. If I were Barack Husein Obama, I would seriously consider following the example of Lyndon Baines Johnson, and choosing a one-term Presidency, instead of either losing the election or winning it only to be forced out of office by impeachment or the threat thereof.
But then what do I know? I'm not a "Constitutional scholar."