Posted on 07/13/2010 1:45:56 AM PDT by Red Steel
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.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. 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.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
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.
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.'
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. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President 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.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue 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.
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 is 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, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Completely accurate. Seems like the only Pubbies with balls are women. We have an unpopular president and it seems like most Pubbies are concerned with “collegiality” “bi-partisantiship” and “ reaching across the aisle” to actually fighting for the Republic.
Again, I'll believe it when I see it. Sources can say any number of things. The fact that some of those things might peter out to be true is more of an indicator of luck as opposed to the source being accurate.
Not that long ago, "sources said" that Sen. Roland Burris would resign because of his connections to Blago. That didn't happen.
Exactly. If the Dupe-reme Court rules on anything, it will be 5-4 along party lines, just like the stupidly-acting congress.
One comment in particular is flawed:
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.
As much as I understand the abuse of the Commerce Clause argument with respect to buttressing Obamacare, it is not that clause that will save it. It is the 16th Amendment that will allow it.
Obamacare is not a Commerce argument, it is a tax argument. As I have bleated since March 21 of this year, and have confirmed, Obama will have his lawyers defend Obamacare, just as FDR's lawyers defended Social Security, as a tax. The 16th Amendment allows Obama to impose a tax in just about any manner he chooses.
Remember, there are the PUBLIC arguments, and then there are the LEGAL arguments, and they are not necessarily the same.
Obama's lawyers will present their LEGAL arguments by claiming that Obamacare forces no one to purchase health insurance, that instead it recommends 'minimum standards' of health insurance, and those that have proof of 'minimum standard health coverage' will receive a tax credit, others will pay the tax,
The SCOTUS will not be able to strike Obamacare down on a tax argument even if they rule that the Commerce Clause does not support Obamacare,
So the answer to preventing the forward progress of socialism is to REPEAL the 16th Amendment.
Here is a tax code replacement movement:
For decades, the Left has wanted socialized medicine, and they always had the law behind them (tax law). But they never could get the votes in Congress until March 21, 2010.
Wake up! It is the 16th that allows the Left to advance socialism in America!
Yeah, well...all sound wonderful, but dream on.
Oh, if only!
I do believe there is a legal action that can be imposed upon Obama thats not quite as severe as an impeachment but would still probably lead to one, I think its called censorship.
I am waiting for someone to add some detail but I also think what it leads to is that basically the POTUS is placed in a disciplinary position, on restriction and has to go up for review, now whether its done publicly is another matter but I believe its been done many times, but behind closed Whitehouse doors.
” 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. And that is only the tip of the iceberg... “
Am I missing something? Since when does the Supreme Court “gather evidence” in the absence of a specific issue they are ruling on? Doesn’t a case have to be brought before them for their consideration, and that would only be after the case made its way through the lower court system?
When the Supreme Court rules against one of Obama’s policies I expect that it will be because it’s unconstitutional and not because of any political agenda on the part of the justices.
BUMP for later reading.
Well, I’d like to ask them:
WHAT DA HECK HAVE YOU BEEN WAITING FOR?!?!?!
The electorial college does no such thing.
There is no requirement for document production in the Constitution.
Presumably, electors or Members of Congress at the Special Joint Session for examining the votes can request such documents - none did.
I would literally dance in the street if Obamacare were reversed. Of course I live in a cul-de-sac, but still . . .There is NOTHING good about Obamacare. I predict it will be an unmitigated disaster. Maybe I should have every unnecessary organ removed NOW because I would be at the bottom of the surgical rationing list since I’m approaching 60 and probably considered “elderly” by all the know-nothings who would run this fiasco.
Sure is.
Posted under “news” no less.
This could very well be why Obama and Michelle (at the NAACP convention) are ginning up the racial flogging and division in the country.
I witnessed all the racial initiatives starting in the 50’s and forward across the decades. I have never seen such racial division promoted and fostered by any administration in the USA.
He has an agenda to use race and it is going to be very ugly if he continues to use the divide and conquer strategy by race-baiting.
I pray that Obama is impeached and tried for treason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.