State of Our Union: Barack H. Obama and the Constitution


Quick update concerning the Supreme Court decision (pending) concerning the unconstitutional health care program that passed Congress and was signed by Barack H. Obama.
At an annual meeting of The Associated Press in Washington, DC, Obama was quoted:
The Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it … I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme has.

Mr. Obama is apparently not knowledgeable about what the Constitution contains in its articles concerning limited government – it certainly does not allow the government to take control of private enterprise like health care institutions.

The statement made at the AP meeting was different than a statement made earlier where Obama had stated that overturning his signature health care overhaul would amount to overreach by an unelected court.
In a separate challenge in Houston, Texas, US 5thCircuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jerry Smith, said that Obama’s comments has troubled a number of people who have taken the meaning to be that President Obama is challenging the authority of federal courts. The statement reinforces Barack Obama’s disregard for constitutional law, despite his PR statement made at the AP meeting. He had stated that Supreme Court judges are unelectedand therefore applied that the consensus of Congress, majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as the executive signature cannot be altered by the Supreme Court because it was passed by “elected officials” of the government on “behalf of the people”.
Judge Smith, based upon Obama’s statement stated:
I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Judge Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday (April 5th) that states the position of US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review, and said:
The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements.
Barack H. Obamaonce taught classes at a law school, one would think he would be an expert concerning knowledge of laws; however, lawyers are trained and practice ways of circumventing laws through loopholes they seek to find. In view of this fact, voters should not vote anyone for political office who is a lawyer. If you examine the bad presidents we have had in the recent past, you can see that most of them, as well as too many members of Congress, are lawyers.
Obama lied when he declared that the ObamaCare legislation passed by a strong majority; when in fact, the votes was close: 219 to 212. Only 34 members of his political party voted “NO”.
President Obama has defied the checks and balance system of our government that is referred to as separation of powers. He, as well as other presidents have exploited the powers of the bench and have chosen justices for the Supreme Court who are involved in judicial activism. A perfect example of this was the congressional approval of the Obama appointed justice – Sonia Sotomayor, who has had affiliation with La Raza, a racist Hispanic organization. Supposedly an Hispanic “civil rights” organization – it has remained silent concerning the Trayvon Martin case where the person George Zimmerman (allegedly) unlawfully fired a handgun in a scuffle with a black teenager. Black militants have literally put a price on his head and the Hispanic Zimmerman and his family were forced to go into hiding. The primary entity that is guilty of escalating the incident into a national focus is the media – more interested in sensationalism rather than true justice and allowing the courts to decide guilt or no guilt. 

The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day. – Joseph Story
The following is a list of Obama’s contribution to unconstitutional acts:
  • Made recess appointments. (Article II, Sec. 2 and Article 1, Sec. 5)
  • Declared war on Libya without congressional approval; using the “60-day” act to attack with military force (Article 1, Sec. 8).
  • Violated state government rights with Stimulus Package 1607 (b): If funds provided to any state in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.
  • General Motors bailout: only Congress has the authority to control funds and currency.
  • Matheson Scandal, Obama involvement concerning bribery of a US judge as well as political activist judges (Article II, Sec. 4).
  • Refused to participate in several court cases that charge that Barack H. Obama, alias Barry Soetoro, has violated the social security identification rules as well as submitting as proof of citizenship a doctored birth certificate.

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. … 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. … 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.’ … 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. … 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.‘ —Investor’s Business Daily

Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

NOTE: President Obama’s rating as president is lower than the popular poll of presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul(numbers according to mainstream media). 
FURTHER READING:
Back To The Future? by Thomas Sowell  

Advertisements