Posted on 02/23/2011 4:36:13 PM PST by dont_tread_on_malik
This tussle in Florida over the “clarity” of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional is further unfolding. From the tone of Vinson’s comments on the matter, the DOJ’s push for the ruling to be clarified is not sitting too well with him:
(Excerpt) Read more at 21statelawsuit.com ...
“That is quite false. Obama took an oath to execute the office and to preserve protect and defend the constitution. Nowhere is it said that deciding which laws to uphold and which to ignore is a part of the execution of the office. He doesn’t get to veto laws that were passed before he took office.”
And how is he supposed to do that if he has no idea what the constitution says (granted as a constitutional law professor I doubt very much that he has even read it but even so...)?
The US courts were set up similar to the then existing English courts and were envisioned to have the same function as them. You need the hierarchy so that rulings on points of law are consistent throughout the federal court system which was what the USC was supposed to be and still does today. Look up the history of the USC on wiki they have a pretty good summary of how it all came about.
trapped_in_LA wrote:
<<
The US courts were set up similar to the then existing English courts and were envisioned to have the same function as them. You need the hierarchy so that rulings on points of law are consistent throughout the federal court system which was what the USC was supposed to be and still does today. Look up the history of the USC on wiki they have a pretty good summary of how it all came about.
>>
So our next conservative president can choose to ignore Roe v. Wade then? :-)
Interesting stuff... I’ll need to do some additional reading and research on this, but I’ll keep an open mind for the time being.
>>>>Civil War on the way.<<<<
**************************************************************
No, I don’t believe it is. Our dictator Obama and his side kick Holder just announced that they are the government; the judicial and legislative branches no longer exist! Do you all understand what I am saying? The judicial and legislative branches of our government are gone!! And what are we doing about it? Bitchin’ on an website.
But then again, when we have 20 year plus members of congress who can't identify the three branches of government and Supreme Court justices looking to foreign statute law for precedent, why would we think something as 'arcane' as separation of powers would make them blink.
We are so screwed.
“So our next conservative president can choose to ignore Roe v. Wade then? :-)”
He could if he had the guts say that he was not going to enforce the courts ruling which basically would nullify it, which is what the O is doing right now, simply ignoring the court ruling on the constitutionality of O-care. What are the courts going to do? Have him arrested when he is the one in charge of the deputies? The only ones that have any power against the President is Congress who can impeach him and remove him from office. The courts only have power because the executive branch enforces their rulings, otherwise they’d just be pi$$ing in the wind.
The Constitution is DOA in Eric Holder’s mind. The same for Obama, the “constitutional law professor” - NOT. HE wouldn’t know the Constitution if is slapped him upside the head, at least not ours. Maybe Castro’s, or Chavez’s or Putin’s constitution, but NOT OURS.
Yes I know there is another decision against Obamacare but the topic was Judge Vinson’s ruling. The fact is we have various inconsistent rulings, so the Administration can’t possibly just do what “the court” said at this point.
Wow, when Obama unilaterally without a judge decided that DOMA was unconstitutional, he seemed to understand how to proceed — as if the law did not exist.
“Mind pointing out where the court has the authority to declare something unconstitutional in the constitution?”
IIRC, try Article III, Sec. 2. of the Constitution; also see Marbury vs. Madison. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court does have that power and authority. That case and decision clarified it. Where on earth do you practice law, anyway?
It is the President’s duty to veto bills he considers to be unconstitutional. It is also the duty of each Congressman to not vote for bills they personally believe to be unconstitutional.
Eric Holder: “The Consti... what?”
Yes, but it's a lot of fun deciphering your posts. And worth the trouble too.
They’re certainly contemptible.
WHEN WILL SOMEONE START IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS?
Obama and the media are against the interests of America.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Sorry wasn’t brainwashed in law school so don’t have the bias that they have when looking at this issue. Article III section 2 gives the scope of the judiciary but no where in there does it give them the right to call a law unconstitutional. As you pointed out Marbury vs Madison was where they made up that power with the President going along with it because it was politically advantageous for him. Before that the judicial branch of government wasn’t held in much esteem. Past Presidents knew this and would on occasion ignore the court as when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for war protesters and ignored the SCOTUS on the matter.
They are requesting the court to clarify what the meaning of is is.
The contempt this Administration has shown for the Rule of Law is just breathtaking. Drop the Black Panther case after they’ve been convicted; choose not to enforce DOMA, while strictly enforcing removal of DADT. But our SCOTUS has passed on every question about whether or not this POTUS is even eligible to sit in the Oval Office.
An adjunct law lecturer. No need to elevate the usurper.
The presidency and judicial are represented by the side eagles. They look outwards, restricted to ONLY carry out their limited functions. The center eagle, with TWO eyes shown, looking at US, representing the TWO chambers, passes law in line with OUR wishes.
True, but that's not what's at issue here.
Obama, by ordering the DOJ to stop supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, is in effect, usurping the power of the Judicial branch to determine what is, and what is not law.
He has no authority to interpret the constitutionality of any US law. His job as president, is to enforce the law. Period.
The President has the authority and responsibility to gauge the constitutionality of a bill that comes to his desk for signing. Once he has signed it, that responsibility moves to the judicial branch. That has been true since the inception of the doctrine of judicial review.
To ignore a co-equal branch of the government in its proper performance of its duties is blatantly unconstitutional, and just as blatantly dictatorial.
Your interpretation here is incorrect.
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.