Posted on 04/03/2012 7:18:38 AM PDT by IbJensen
The highest elected official in the United States dished out an extra helping of irony yesterday when, in speaking at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama slammed the Supreme Court as an “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they strike down Obamacare.
The President’s remarks imply that the Court, were it to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, would be acting recklessly in undertaking judicial review of Congress’ unprecedented use of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty. The irony in all this is that this President has presided over an Administration that is the epitome of recklessly abusing power, at times in flagrant violation of the Constitution, and has empowered unelected bureaucrats to write scads of new regulations impacting nearly every corner of American life.
Obamacare, of course, is a prime example of that unchecked and multiplying web of the President’s boundless dictates. The law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (otherwise known as “IPAB”) is packed with unelected bureaucrats who have the power to limit seniors’ treatment options and access to care, essentially ending Medicare as we know it.
On top of IPAB, Obamacare is rife with new regulations, all courtesy of unelected bureaucrats. Professor of law Gary Lawson writes that the implementation of Obamcare “will require many years and literally thousands of administrative regulations, and those regulations will ultimately determine the substantive content and coverage of the law.” In other words, the future of health care in America will not be determined by the people’s elected representatives, but by administrative rulemakings handed down by unelected and largely unknown agency officials. How’s that for a “democratically elected government”?
Obamacare, though, isn’t the only example of the Obama Administration imposing its will via executive fiat. In a new study, Heritage’s James Gattuso and Diane Katz detail 106 new major federal regulations that added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. And those are regulations enacted not by elected officials who are accountable to voters, but by Washington bureaucrats who can wield their power without having to answer to the people.
While the President is throwing stones at the court, he’s living in a glass house from which he has exercised his tyrannical abuse of power. In January, the President cast aside the Constitution when he illegally appointed Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, along with three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, all without Senate approval, as the Constitution requires. Former attorney general Ed Meese described the President’s actions as ”a constitutional abuse of a high order,” and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said it was ”a brazen attempt to undercut the role of the Senate to advise and consent the executive branch on appointments.”
And this is the President who said in December, “What I’m not gonna do is wait for Congress. So wherever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we’re just gonna go ahead and do ‘em,” irrespective of whether the people’s duly elected representatives have a say in the matter.
Now that the President is seeing the potential for his signature legislation to go down in flames because of its unconstitutional individual mandate, he is lashing out at the Supreme Court. To date, President Obama has enjoyed ruling with impunity and has attempted to carry out his agenda without so much as a hat tip to the Constitution. But come June when the Court rules on Obamacare, the President might finally see part of his agenda stopped in its tracks.
I read here on FR that the reason the Heritage people supported the mandate in the first place had to do with the $25,000.00 donation they recieved from Romney or a group of his supporters......anyone with more info on this should post here...
Judicial activism is creating law out of thin air, i.e. Roe v Wade. Judicial review is looking at the constitutionality of a law against what the constitution REALLY says - and declaring the law unconstitutional. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Putz indeed!
OAD barks!
If they rule against him, it will very likely be the first time in his entire life that something did not turn out his way.
His brain, I am sure, cannot process that. Look for an absolute meltdown to occur.
.
Who sent him?
What is his secret?
Why won’t he release his
bona fides?
What is his agenda?
The best Obama exposure site on the net:
http://theobamafile.com/
The United States Library of Congress has selected
TheObamaFile.com for inclusion in its
historic collection of Internet materials
http://theobamafile.com/LibraryOfCongress.html
.
UNELECTED…UNACCOUNTABLE…UNCONSTITUTIONAL
During a press conference on April 2, 2012, President Obama suggested that the unelected United States Supreme Court should not strike down the Affordable Care Act that Congress enacted into law. The President strongly suggested that the Supreme Court, being unelected, should not be in a position to overrule one of the other branches of government. It was a politically charged comment by the President who has not been reluctant to publicly condemn the Court.
His argument that the Supreme Court should not rule ‘against’ the President and Congress does not consider the balance of power, separation of power, and the checks and balances that our founders specifically placed in the Constitution. The President’s statement and argument is threatening to the Constitution and an outrageous attempt at bullying the Court. The Court defends the peoples’ rights against unlawful or unconstitutional acts by the other two branches of government!
It is equally notable to point out that our unaccountable Congress passed this law without even reading the 2,700 page bill. Congressmen did not know what was in the bill, and it was mainly a partisan vote in that members of the minority party were excluded from critical discussion and debate on the bill. A Congress that enacts a law without knowledge of the details is an irresponsible, inept group of legislators, and is not exercising its Constitutional authority and responsibility. They must be held accountable.
Many are arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional in that it mandates that Americans buy insurance. Those opposed to the law believe, rightly so, that it can lead to the government telling people what cars to drive, what schools to choose for their children, and mandate other citizen actions. While it is likely true that all citizens must be insured for this law to work as the President envisions, that doesn’t make it constitutional nor is this law necessarily the only solution that can be implemented to solve our health care problems. Generally, I would agree that we need to make improvements in the delivery and adequacy and cost of health care. The ACA is, in my opinion, one more step in the President’s goal of socialism for the United States, not healthcare reform.
Americans must not allow our government to institute laws or practices that violate our unalienable rights and the Constitution. Americans must not allow the Congress or the Executive branches of government to dismantle the Supreme Court or politically influence its decisions. The checks and balances of three separate branches of government are essential to the free operation of our government, our economy and our liberty. If the President believes ‘unelected’ persons in government should not exercise power, then he needs to reconsider his unelected czars! Perhaps he should re-read the Constitution. Our elected representatives appoint Supreme Court justices. That is the way our Republic works! That is the intent of our Constitution. President Obama has been assaulting capitalism and the Constitution since he took office…we must stop him.
Tom Durbin
with a little help from gutless Congressional Republicans
...Drudge speculates this morning that Kagan has already leaked the decision to Obama...why would Obama engage in such angry talk if he already knew the court ruled in his favor?
What?
It only amounts to another pot to dip into....
‘Bammy knows EXACTLY allabout Constitutional Law ......he doesn’t care....and is wanting to find out just exactly what We the People will do about it.
Liberals ALWAYS push the boundaries as far as they can.. And we conservative remain comfortable enough to let them continue to getaway with it.
I don’t think he’d go even if voted out. It’s going to be a very dark time either way.
It would be nice if one of the libs would join in a 6-3 smack down. If that were to happen, my money would be on Beyer who shows an occasional attack of common sense.
Yes
We need to retire the phrase Judical Activism. It has been mugged by the progressives, it’s old meaning has been sucked out and a brand new novel meaning has replaced it.
Judical Activism = disagreeing with the President.
If we try to use it in an argument we will be misunderstood. This deliberate debacement of language is the mnost dispicable tool in the demogagues quiver. Self government is impossible if we can’t communicate with each other rationally.
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.