i guess that means laws against illegal immigration and defense of marriage laws are okydoky then too...
Posted on 04/05/2012 6:56:00 PM PDT by chessplayer
They asked for three pages single-spaced. He gave them two and a half. Impeach.
Seriously, though, given the immense interest in this story when it broke Tuesday, there was no way O wasn’t going to use the letter as an opportunity to plead his constitutional case on ObamaCare. The court wanted a statement of the DOJ’s position on judicial review but Holder naturally gave them a little more than that. First, the obligatory — and slightly peevish — acknowledgment that, yes, Marbury v. Madison is still good law:
Holder - "In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Com1 has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S . 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-22i, 346 U.S. at 449.
In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15."
Here’s Carney from today’s press briefing, now in his third day of trying to explain how a constitutional law professor could tell the country on Monday that striking down the mandate would be “unprecedented.” He can’t admit the real reason so this will have to do.
Carney (AKA Baghdad Bob) - "President Obama knows the law."
Mmmm, no. The courts decide whether or not some law is constitutional not the law makers such as congress. Mr. Holder needs a course on Constitutional law as well as Obamalamadingdong.
Sowell
hey, it worked with his birth certificate! I guess he just figured they would just take his word for it with this too!
Mr. Holder arms terrorists and has burned
American children alive.
Of what need has he, or his racist-terrorist DOJ,
ever had for SCOTUS, truth, justice, or the American way.
And intelligent citizens are to presume that the Affirmative Action, US Attorney General, is an unabashed, in-your face, Commie Racist.
Remember these radical leftist utopian hacks live in a false world where right and wrong are defined by their radical agenda, not what is right for America and its laws.
Courts could presume laws to be Constitutional, if we had honest, law and Constitution abiding people creating them. But we don’t— we have Obama and Holder, et al.
So that removes that assumption.
i guess that means laws against illegal immigration and defense of marriage laws are okydoky then too...
FOAD Holder lying sack o sheit.... you will be flushed down the toilet on November 6th 2012 along with your patron Hussein Obama
It is my understanding that our judicial systems must assume that all laws are constitutional until challenged by someone with standing. Otherwise every law passed would have to pass through the judicial system before becoming accepted law.
In Texas tonight there is an Assistant U.S. Attorney thinking “Why me?!”
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured.......
…. But not everyone must prove they are a citizen."
Ben Stein
I noticed today that Rush was calling him Eric the Red.
He and his boss are basically daring We th e People to do something about it.
It’s all out war now against the SC by obama and the media.
I heard that TOO!!! Loved it!
Uh, “presumptively constitutional” is sort of beside the point when the law in question is under active consideration by the Supreme Court. We’re past presumption at that point.
...............................now in his third day of trying to explain how a constitutional law professor could tell the country on Monday that striking down the mandate would be “unprecedented.” .............................
???????A Constitutional Law Professor???? WTF
How about a sometimes substitute law lecturer who lost his license to practice law in his home state!!!
No. The courts are silent on the question of a law's constitutionality until an appellate court has agreed to adjudicate a case brought by a party with standing to bring suit.
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.