Posted on 04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by tellw
President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.
"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.
But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."
The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.
Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.
Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.
Although, there is progress - the MSM is now actually checking the facts! One small step for a woman, one giant leap for all of America!
So, let’s say the SCOTUS declares the entire Obamugabe Care Law unconstitutional and throws it out.
Obamugabe says, “Fine, we will institute it anyway, SCOTUS be damned.”
THEN what do you do?.......................
If Obama was unsure of certain provisions that might render his crown jewel unconstitutional. He should have used the Line Item Veto that the Republican controlled House passed with Unanimous Consent and was signed by a Democrat president.
It was declared ‘unconstitutional’.............;^)
Don't you just want to stick his head in a toilet and flush?
What’s this we? The House hold the purse strings.
“How many fingers, Winston?”
There was a time when CBS was the gold standard in broadcast news.
Once of twice this week, I thought I saw it again.
Is this where you found that stat? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf
I suggest everyone post it on their Facebook.....or whatever other means they communicate to family and friends.
In Obamaville we wave a magic wand and all things become constitutional
But.....but.......it was a democratically elected congress!!!!!
No; he knows Critical Race Theory, and what Critical Race Theory says is that you should throw out pesky sh*t like the Constitution, and work around pesky institutions like the US Supreme Court, when those things get in the way of social justice. Why? Because things like the Constitution and institutions like the Supreme Court are the products of the White Man, and they merely perpetuate the White Man's hegemony over the power and the $$$$ floating around this awful land called the United States of America.
This is exactly the reason why Breitbart's vetting viz. CRT is so damn important.
Only those who are willingly blind cannot see it for what it is. Obama's entire life has been leading up to this point. Literally - his entire life.
The real problem is that in January 2009 we inaugurated what we thought we had elected, a president, one who swore to uphold the U. S. Constitution. But what we really inaugurated was an executive community organizer or, to put it more accurately, a revolutionary.
This man who was elected to an office that he is committed not to faithfully execute, but to faithlessly neglect in order to transform what he views as a flawed Constitution. Manifestly, he believes the Constitution must be transformed from an enumeration of the “negative rights” of a federal government of equal and divided powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, whose chief intent is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the government into an enumeration of the “positive rights” of the collective citizenry, whose chief intent is to empower a federal government of unequal and hierarchical powers, EXECUTIVE, legislative, and judicial, to both oversee and administer those rights to the collective citizenry in whatever way it sees fit.
I was surprised at the Tea Party protest (D.C. 2008) at the number of young people with mini Constitutions in hand. Very encouraging.
‘law professor’? Wow?
I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last week. I watched People’s Court on the tv. Am I now a ‘law professor’?
There hasn’t been a budget passed in three years, yet the government still runs.......
Rush is correct. Zer0 is playing to the ignorant voter base who believes freedom is the free stuff you get from the government.
Aparently not a very memorable one because noone remembers him. Nor, can they find his college records!
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.