Posted on 02/04/2011 9:12:28 PM PST by John Semmens
Federal Judge Roger Vinsons ruling that President Obamas health care law is unconstitutional need not be obeyed says Senator Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill).
The Courts arent the only ones authorized to decide the Constitutionality of the laws, Durbin insisted. We allCongress and President, aliketake an oath to uphold the Constitution. Just because the Court has a different opinion doesnt mean the President must accept it.
This wouldnt be the first time a President ignored a Court decision, Durbin observed. Back in the 1830s, President Jackson chose to ignore a Supreme Court decisiontelling then Chief Justice John Marshall to enforce his own decision. So, President Obama ignoring a lower court decision is small potatoes in comparison. In the final analysis, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. The Army and all federal law enforcement personnel answer to him. If he doesnt want to abide by a court decision whos going to make him?
The Court decision President Andrew Jackson chose to ignore was one asserting that Indians had sovereign rights that the US and state governments had to respect. Subsequently, the Cherokee Tribe was forcibly evicted from its land by the US Army so it could be seized by the State of Georgia.
In related news, Obama Administration spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that Vinsons ruling will have no effect on our implementation of the health care reform law, calling it a rogue decision by a judge who is out of step with modern judicial thinking. It is one thing for courts to make laws that help people. It is another thing entirely when a judge tries to overturn the efforts of Congress and the President to help people. Quite simply, Judge Vinson is guilty of the wrong kind of judicial activism.
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/senator-urges-president-to-ignore-court-ruling/
It’s nearly impossible to tell the diff between truth and satire anymore.
cafeteria constitutionalist ping.
BTW, does merely briefly believing Durbin said this constitute taking the bait, or is it only by actually posting in the mistaken belief he said this that one lands in the fisherman’s hold?
mark
Note to readers. The story is false but they won’t tell you that. The “fish” metaphor is a way to ridicule people for believing the lie. It’s apparently funny that people believe made up stories reported as factual. That’s what “semi-satirical” means.
Remember its funny to be lied to and then ridiculed for believing it, so enjoy yourselves.
"Arrrrr, ye be battered and flash frozen by sun up, matey!"
LOL
Guess Ole Macks back in town.
See it? I sure see it, and the view from here is dizzying!
Where is our leverage?
Not only is Durbin advocating for a dictatorship, but is also promoting anarchy. If a President can ignore the courts with impunity, there is no “nation of laws” and it is every man for himself.
And to threaten the people with use of the military is a “high crime and misdemeanor.”
This one is a powerhouse.
Good...no...great job.
Good one John.
You just keep skating right on that razor thin edge Johnny.
Good one John!
“Jackson never said that and he never defied a Supreme Court Ruling.”
Thanks for this. I’d always accepted the “conventional wisdom” (having heard it repeated so many times) and your response motivated me to dig deeper. Unless you and Wikipedia are in cahoots to exonerate Jackson, it would appear you are quite correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
You got plenty of fish and beef. Enough to feed the whole flock with plenty left over for a week or two. So where is the satire? Great one John!
Got here late. The kill ratio for this one was exceptional :-)
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.