Posted on 11/30/2011 5:43:25 AM PST by IbJensen
Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble...with Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down 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, Beck, Hannity, and so on... 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, double citizenship, natural born...and others.
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 Obama 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 suing 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 was 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. And also the ATF and DOJ and the gun sales under Fast and Furious.
Why would you say that.
Who wrote this letter?
Hope its valid....
To me, that is the MOST critical reason. Supremes can continue to do damage years longer than the Presidents who appoint them.
Outside of ruling Obambicare unconstitutional,these are empty,meaningless threats and amount to absolutely zero.
Is he going to be removed from office as he should be? Nope.Nothing significant will happen to these poseurs who occupy the White House in the next year and while a concise summary, without actions this article is a waste of cyberspace.
How is the mandate different from forcing SS and Medicare on us? You asked...
I say they are different, even though I question the constitutionality of all three...
SS and Medicare is a tax, in return for which you become eligible for retirement and medical benefits.
The mandate is forced purchase of an insurance product, for which you receive punishment if you refuse to purchase the mandated product. The IRS is empowered against you for your refusal to purchase.
There is no known limit on what the government could force you to purchase under a similar scheme. No limit on their power to punish you if you refuse, through the IRS.
I would add, SS and Medicare do have congressional involvement and oversight, whereas in the Obamacare bill the Secretary of HHS is virtually given carte blanche to do as they please.
Finally, the Court will hear arguments re: the bill forcing states to greatly expand Medicaid onto which the “newly insured” will be forced.
Does a state have no standing against doing whatever the feds order them to do? That would be a total reversal of the Founders intent. The feds were to be a creation by the states for the states purposes, not the other way around.
So, take note...more than the mandate will be ruled on.
You no doubt missed this:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-06/news/27069208_1_elena-kagan-conservative-bloc-swing-vote
Read, damnit!
“Personal feelings have no place on the court. I have enough faith in Chief Justice Roberts and in Justice Alito and Scalia and Thomas and most of the rests to believe that any decisions striking down any of Obama’s policies will be made based on firm Constitutional grounds and not because Obama doesn’t like them.”
But who would enforce decisions that go against Hussein? It’s not likely that holder would do it—and that’s why hussein keeps him there.
Sounds familiar. I believe it was posted here months ago.
Not convinced of this until we see action.
The earliest posting of this ‘email’ that I could find with a quick Google was October 30, 2010. So the Supreme Court isn’t all that pissed.
I would be utterly delighted if the Supremes would just READ THE DAMN CONSTITUTION and start from there.
Instead, the Supremes rely on the doctrine of “stare decisis” and their rulings are based almost exclusively on EARLIER decisions that were reached. Whether those decisions were idiotic (Wickard v. Filburn) or not makes no difference. The actual words on parchment are unimportant. All that matters is how the Court ruled in the past. Precedent is now law.
For example, READ the actual words of the Fourth Amendment then explain to me how TSA can legally grope your privates. Or how “natural born citizen” is the same as “citizen.”
“—that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
This last line nullified the article’s entire purpose.
So nothing really has been done or communicated by the SC as the article title states.
I see Dan Hennesey...I dont recognize him...
To whom did he email this to?
Is this in a legit publication?
“Why would you say that.”
I second the question. Do you think that it is beyond possibility that Obama isn’t eligible to hold the office, especially since he’s done more to hide every aspect of his past than any other President in history? I could understand the point of view that says, “This is a much less effective way to get rid of him” or “this is a distraction vs. winning the next election” or thoughts along the same lines, but I simply cannot understand a blanket dismissal of the issue.
Picking up a pattern here?
Here is why I am giving a blanket dismissal of the issue.
I don’t believe that pursuing this issue in the middle of a Presidential election helps the Republican party. It makes them look petty and gives the impression that they are trying to dig something up when there are more important things going on.
If they haven’t found out about this yet, then either there is a massive coverup going on,one which is far beyond anything in the history of this country, it was planted by the libs to make Republicans look like idiots or it just isn’t true.
SCOTUS will not hear this issue before the election. If they did, they would probably kick it back to the lower courts.
If anything, when they Republicans take back the White House, hold congress and win the Senate, then they should go after the media for covering the scandal up(if it is a coverup)and break the thing wide open. In this way, we will own all three branches of government and the libs will never be trusted again to run for dog catcher.
For purely political reasons. If an eo allowed unionization of fed workers then a similar one could disallow it.
Is it not true what an eo creates another eo can uncreate?
That is one matter that Roberts needs to clearly explain to the people. Why wasn’t the swearing done the 2nd time in public? What was the oath? I keep having visions of the photo where Obama was holding court/buddy buddy like in the office of Roberts. Obama was clearly in charge of the meeting. I believe that the election of Obama was enhanced if not supported by compromised people in our government in Congress and the courts all the way up.
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.