* Bumped Up *
For a guy touted as the, “smartest man” to ever occupy the Oval Office, Barack Obama is a dummy. The icing on the cake is the assertion that Obama is a “Constitutional Scholar.” BOLLOCKS!! The man is a clown.
He started a verbal brawl with the Judiciary Branch yesterday during a Rose Garden appearance, where he made the false claim:
“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 told reporters today while speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Obama reminded reporters that conservative commentators, have complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint,” that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
“An unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
My old boss, a retired Marine Colonel taught me the saying, “DUMB IS FOREVER.” Well boys and girls, Obama is forever.
Marginal students who have taken a college level course on American History understand that the Supreme Court established the PRECEDENT of overturning a law in Marbury vs. Madison:
It 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”.
Only an ignorant, unschooled pretender of a “constitutional scholar” would assert that the Supreme Court would be doing something “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” in declaring a law passed by Congress “unconstitutional.”
Fortunately, the Judicial branch is not about to let Barack Obama get away with this specious, false nonsense. A Federal Appeals court fired back today with both barrels:
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Does this prove that Barack was just an EEO selection for Harvard Law Review? How in the world could a serious, competent lawyer claim the fantasy that Barack spun yesterday?